Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node)

From: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node)
Date: 2014-03-04 21:34:36
Message-ID: CADyhKSW7HQD5N3kysgC4JWvySs3Ekvj2P_gXOkZXM-6xoDXiBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2014-03-05 5:52 GMT+09:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> > Alright- so do you feel that the simple ctidscan use-case is a
>> > sufficient justification and example of how this can be generally
>> > useful that we should be adding these hooks to core..? I'm willing to
>> > work through the patch and clean it up this weekend if we agree that
>> > it's useful and unlikely to immediately be broken by expected changes..
>>
>> Yeah, I think it's useful. But based on Tom's concurrently-posted
>> review, I think there's probably a good deal of work left here.
>
> Yeah, it certainly looks like it.
>
> KaiGai- will you have time to go over and address Tom's concerns..?
>
Yes, I need to do. Let me take it through the later half of this week and
the weekend. So, I'd like to submit revised one by next Monday.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-04 21:37:48 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-03-04 21:12:53 Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow