Re: TopPlan, again

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TopPlan, again
Date: 2007-02-19 03:02:23
Message-ID: 45D9133F.3090406@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>

>> Comments, objections? Also, any thoughts about the names to use for
>> these new node types? As I commented last year, I'm not completely
>> happy with "TopPlan" because it won't actually be a subtype of Plan,
>> but I don't have a better idea. Also I'm unsure what to call the
>> cut-down RangeTblEntry struct; maybe RunTimeRangeTblEntry?
>
> I think TopPlan is misleading. What about MetaPlan instead of TopPlan? I
> think RunTimeRangeTblEntry is okay, though long. ExecRangeTblEntry?
>

Would ExecPlan be better? - matches ExecRangeTblEntry.

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-02-19 03:28:49 Re: TopPlan, again
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2007-02-19 02:34:17 Re: TopPlan, again