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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-committers by date

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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