| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED - core functionality |
| Date: | 2010-11-25 14:16:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=yCTBMyJn9Hcqd2THgTKSJ-TsxmpXv3AHzasjF@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 22:03, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I propose the attached API instead. This has a clear separation between plan
> and execution.
The APIs seem to be cleaner. The previous ones might be too straight
implementation of the SQL standard.
But I have some questions about the new APIs:
1. Doesn't FdwPlan need to inherit Plan struct?
2. Doesn't FdwPlan need to support copyObject()?
3. If "Datum *values, bool *isnulls" is the better interface,
why do we use TupleTableSlot? We might have the similar issue
in the index-only scan; it also handles virtual tuples.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-25 14:35:19 | Re: reporting reason for certain locks |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-25 14:00:45 | Re: reporting reason for certain locks |