On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I think it'd be better to match the comment with that for
>>> create_foreignscan_path(). So how about "ForeignPath represents a
>>> potential scan of a foreign table, foreign join, or fo
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> I think it'd be better to match the comment with that for
>> create_foreignscan_path(). So how about "ForeignPath represents a
>> potential scan of a foreign table, foreign join, or foreign upper-relation
>> processing"? I think we would pr
Fujita-san,
On 2016/04/20 16:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2016/04/18 17:31, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Is the following description now outdated:
>>
>> "ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table"
>>
>> Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose
>> produ
On 2016/04/18 17:31, Amit Langote wrote:
Is the following description now outdated:
"ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table"
Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose
product is nothing else but a ForeignPath, should it now say (patch attached)
Is the following description now outdated:
"ForeignPath represents a potential scan of a foreign table"
Considering that there now exists FdwRoutine.GetForeignJoinPaths() whose
product is nothing else but a ForeignPath, should it now say (patch attached):
"ForeignPath represents a potential scan