Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql: Fix calculation of plan node extParams to account for the

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jackie Leng" <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix calculation of plan node extParams to account for the
Date: 2006-06-01 21:53:14
Message-ID: 21744.1149198794@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
"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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-committers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group