Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minor comment edits in nodeGather.c
Date: 2015-11-30 18:06:02
Message-ID: CA+TgmobpRNq9X=PTnUF6iicN2k1dqDRRVwG8cEgK=tpACs12Xw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
>>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
>>> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node
>>> which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if
>>> the semantics of Gather node is that of Scan or more generic Plan? That is
>>> to ask whether the following edit makes sense:
>>>
>>> * nodeGather.c
>>> - * Support routines for scanning a plan via multiple workers.
>>> + * Support routines for getting the result from a plan via multiple
>>> + * workers.
>>> *
>>
>> Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's
>> technically a Scan.
>
> Okay, ripped that out in the attached.

Committed, thanks.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2015-11-30 18:16:02 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-11-30 18:05:21 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.