Re: RFC: extensible planner state

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: extensible planner state
Date: 2025-09-29 13:28:55
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa2P_KHPLnv6mpkkmG9zdCTD6kYoBhPYvH4-GCikMN9gA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 11:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Oh, nice, thanks! I'm going to be on vacation the rest of this week so
I plan to deal with this next week. However, if you feel like
committing it before then, please feel free.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2025-09-29 13:55:06 Re: Sending unflushed WAL in physical replication
Previous Message Matheus Alcantara 2025-09-29 13:23:03 Remove unused parameter form find_window_run_conditions()