| From: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |
| Date: | 2016-01-29 04:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8011A35F4@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> > Do you think we shall allow to register same extensible node name for
> > different node types? Like, "GpuJoin" for any of CustomPath, CustomScan
> > and CustomScanState. Or, do we avoid this using different name for each?
>
> I'd say a different name for each. That's our current convention, and
> I don't see much reason to change it.
>
OK, it is not a serious problem, at least, for my use cases.
A convention like "GpuJoinPath", "GpuJoin" and "GpuJoinState" are sufficient.
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-29 05:14:49 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-29 04:22:11 | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |