"Jackie Leng" <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com> writes:
> So, my question is why not just add a bms_intersect in the second occasion
> just like the first one? Do we need to change so much?

finalize_plan already has a bms_intersect, but it's further down in the
routine (to share code instead of duplicating it in each of the switch
cases) --- in CVS HEAD, line 1199.  This is not relevant to the patch
AFAICS.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: pgsql: Fix calculation of plan node extParams to account for the at 2006-05-25 07:55:13 from Jackie Leng

Responses

• Re: pgsql: Fix calculation of plan node extParams to account for the at 2006-06-02 10:05:28 from Jackie Leng

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-06-01 22:33:18
	Subject: "CVS-Unknown" buildfarm failures?
Previous:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2006-06-01 21:45:40
	Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-06-01 23:18:11
	Subject: pgsql: Back-port Postgres 7.4 spinlock code into 7.3 branch.
Previous:	From: User Fxjr	Date: 2006-06-01 05:15:22
	Subject: npgsql - Npgsql: 2006-06-01 Francisco Figueiredo Jr.