Horton

Corrected: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

View thread
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-03-12T08:07:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
(2012/03/12 13:04), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2012/03/09 23:48), Tom Lane wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>   writes:

>>> 2. IMHO RelOptInfo.fdw_private seems confusing.  How about renaming it
>>> to e.g., RelOptInfo.fdw_state?
>>
>> Why is that better?  It seems just as open to confusion with another
>> field (ie, the execution-time fdw_state).
> 
> I thought the risk.  However, I feel that the naming of
> RelOptInfo.fdw_state is not so bad because it is used only at the query
> planning time, not used along with the execution-time fdw_private.

I wrote the execution-time fdw_private by mistake.  I meant the
execution-time fdw_state.  I'm sorry about that.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita