| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Corrected: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
| Date: | 2012-03-12 08:07:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4F5DAEC2.9070807@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2012/03/12 13:04), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2012/03/09 23:48), Tom Lane wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>> 2. IMHO RelOptInfo.fdw_private seems confusing. How about renaming it
>>> to e.g., RelOptInfo.fdw_state?
>>
>> Why is that better? It seems just as open to confusion with another
>> field (ie, the execution-time fdw_state).
>
> I thought the risk. However, I feel that the naming of
> RelOptInfo.fdw_state is not so bad because it is used only at the query
> planning time, not used along with the execution-time fdw_private.
I wrote the execution-time fdw_private by mistake. I meant the
execution-time fdw_state. I'm sorry about that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-12 09:02:16 | Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-03-12 08:06:44 | Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays |