From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:51:03 -0400
Message-ID: <10029.1215442263@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1215414601.4051.432.camel@ebony.site>
References: <20080623150535.946E.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp>
<1215161065.4051.26.camel@ebony.site>
<20080707104202.73E5.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp>
<1215414601.4051.432.camel@ebony.site>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:03 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> One issue is "tag" field. The type is now uint32. It's enough in my plugin,
>> but if some people need to add more complex structures in PlannedStmt,
>> Node type would be better rather than uint32. Which is better?
> I was imagining that tag was just an index to another data structure,
> but probably better if its a pointer.
I don't want the tag there at all, much less converted to a pointer.
What would the semantics be of copying the node, and why?
Please justify why you must have this and can't do what you want some
other way.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
In-Reply-To: <10029.1215442263@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox