Re: executor relation handling

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: executor relation handling
Date: 2018-09-28 08:58:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/09/28 17:48, David Rowley wrote:
> On 28 September 2018 at 20:28, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2018/09/28 17:21, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think we maybe should switch the word "assert" for "verifies". The
>>> Assert is just checking we didn't get a NoLock and I don't think
>>> you're using "assert" meaning the Assert() marco, so likely should be
>>> changed to avoid confusion.
>> Okay, I've revised the text in the attached updated patch.
> Meh, I just noticed that the WARNING text claims "InitPlan" is the
> function name. I think it's best to get rid of that. It's pretty much
> redundant anyway if you do: \set VERBOSITY verbose

Oops, good catch that one. Removed "InitPlan: " from the message in the


Attachment Content-Type Size
v9-0001-Don-t-lock-range-table-relations-in-the-executor.patch text/plain 44.0 KB
v9-0002-Remove-useless-fields-from-planner-nodes.patch text/plain 43.4 KB
v9-0003-Prune-PlanRowMark-of-relations-that-are-pruned-fr.patch text/plain 2.4 KB
v9-0004-Revise-executor-range-table-relation-opening-clos.patch text/plain 39.7 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-09-28 09:37:29 Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Previous Message David Rowley 2018-09-28 08:48:33 Re: executor relation handling