Re: [HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker oversight CustomScan

2015-09-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > The latest ExplainPreScanNode is sufficient. Regardless of scanrelid > (even if it is zero), fs_relids and custom_relids shall be set properly > to introduce which relations are represented by this ForeignScan and > CustomScan node. So, addit

Re: [HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker oversight CustomScan

2015-09-22 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:15 AM > To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平) > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

Re: [HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker oversight CustomScan

2015-09-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > The planstate_tree_walker() oversight custom_ps of CustomScanState; > that should be a list of underlying PlanState object if any. > > ExplainPreScanNode() treated ForeignScan and CustomScan in special > way (it is sufficient for ExplainPreSc

[HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker oversight CustomScan

2015-09-21 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Hi, The planstate_tree_walker() oversight custom_ps of CustomScanState; that should be a list of underlying PlanState object if any. ExplainPreScanNode() treated ForeignScan and CustomScan in special way (it is sufficient for ExplainPreScanNode() purpose), thus, it didn't implement its recursive

Re: [HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker

2015-09-17 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Here is a patch that *just* introduces planstate_tree_walker and which >> is hopefully correct. I stole the logic from ExplainPreScanNode, >> which I also refactored to use the new walker instead of duplicating >> the logi

Re: [HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker

2015-09-17 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Here is a patch that *just* introduces planstate_tree_walker and which > is hopefully correct. I stole the logic from ExplainPreScanNode, > which I also refactored to use the new walker instead of duplicating > the logic. It seems a little odd to have removed functions from

[HACKERS] planstate_tree_walker

2015-09-17 Thread Robert Haas
In my reviews of Amit's parallel sequential scan patches yesterday, I complained that he was using planstate_tree_walker incorrectly, but I failed to notice that this was because he'd defined planstate_tree_walker incorrectly. This morning I figured that out. :-) Here is a patch that *just* intro