Re: RFC: extensible planner state

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: extensible planner state
Date: 2025-09-28 15:41:41
Message-ID: 91939.1759074101@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Done now. Here's a rebase of the rest, plus I tweaked the GEQO patch
> to try to avoid a compiler warning that cfbot was complaining about.

I'm good with the v7 patch set, except for the complaint I raised
previously that we really ought to have more than zero documentation
for planner()'s parameters. If you don't care to write such text,
attached is a cut at it.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-document-planner-arguments.patch text/x-diff 1.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-09-28 16:54:23 Re: allow benign typedef redefinitions (C11)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-09-28 14:35:19 Re: allow benign typedef redefinitions (C11)