I forgot to mention that. At Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:17:02 +0900, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <f894af29-345f-678b-480a-9f6e8cc31...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > On 2018/04/25 4:49, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera > >> <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > >>> Robert, I think this is your turf, per 3d956d9562aa. Are you looking > >>> into it? > >> > >> Thanks for the ping. I just had a look over the proposed patch and I > >> guess I don't like it very much. Temporarily modifying the range > >> table in place and then changing it back before we return seems ugly > >> and error-prone. I hope we can come up with a solution that doesn't > >> involve needing to do that. > > > > I have done some refactoring to avoid that. See attached. > > +1 for getting rid of the PlannerInfo argument of the many functions in > that code. I have long wondered if we couldn't rid of it and especially > thought of it when reviewing this patch.
+1 from me. Thanks for making things simpler and easy to understand. I feel the same as Amit:p regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
