Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c

Fujita-san,

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:00 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:28 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I just noticed obsolete references to es_result_relation_info that
> > 0002 failed to remove. One of them is in fdwhandler.sgml:
> >
> > <programlisting>
> > TupleTableSlot *
> > IterateDirectModify(ForeignScanState *node);
> > </programlisting>
> >
> > ... The data that was actually inserted, updated
> > or deleted must be stored in the
> > <literal>es_result_relation_info-&gt;ri_projectReturning-&gt;pi_exprContext-&gt;ecxt_scantuple</literal>
> > of the node's <structname>EState</structname>.
> >
> > We will need to rewrite this without mentioning
> > es_result_relation_info. How about as follows:
> >
> > - <literal>es_result_relation_info-&gt;ri_projectReturning-&gt;pi_exprContext-&gt;ecxt_scantuple</literal>
> > - of the node's <structname>EState</structname>.
> > + <literal>ri_projectReturning-&gt;pi_exprContext-&gt;ecxt_scantuple</literal>
> > + of the result relation's<structname>ResultRelInfo</structname> that has
> > + been made available via node.
> >
> > I've updated 0001 with the above change.
>
> Good catch!

Thanks for the review.

> This would be nitpicking, but:
>
> * IIUC, we don't use the term "result relation" in fdwhandler.sgml.
> For consistency with your change to the doc for BeginDirectModify, how
> about using the term "target foreign table" instead of "result
> relation"?

Agreed, done.

> * ISTM that "<structname>ResultRelInfo</structname> that has been made
> available via node" would be a bit fuzzy to FDW authors. To be more
> specific, how about changing it to
> "<structname>ResultRelInfo</structname> passed to
> <function>BeginDirectModify</function>" or something like that?

That works for me, although an FDW author reading this still has got
to make the connection.

Attached updated patches; only 0001 changed in this version.

Thanks,
Amit