From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |
Date: | 2010-12-29 17:49:19 |
Message-ID: | 25335.1293644959@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, I believe the idea of heap_open is to check that the relation is
> backed by a heap that you can read with heap_beginscan+heap_next. At the
> moment that includes normal tables, sequences and toast tables. Foreign
> tables would not fall into that category.
I don't believe that that definition is documented anyplace; if we
decide that's what we want it to mean, some code comments would be in
order.
> Yeah, you're right that most of the callers of heap_open actually want
> to a tighter check than that.
I think probably most of the physical calls of heap_open are actually
associated with system catalog accesses, and the fact that the code says
heap_open not relation_open has got more to do with copy&paste than any
real thought about what we're specifying.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-12-29 17:50:25 | Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1? |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-29 17:29:23 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |