On 2015/12/01 3:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> Well I think "scanning a plan" is clear enough even if it's
>>> technically a Scan.
>>
>> Okay, ripped that out in the attached.
>
> Committed, thanks
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
>>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the
On 2015/11/25 11:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
>> parellelism code. For example, there is a refer
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
>> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
>> parellelism code. For example, the
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
> comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
> parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node
> which did not mak
While going through nodeGather.c, I noticed portions of the file header
comment that may have been obsoleted by recent revisions of the relevant
parellelism code. For example, there is a reference to PartialSeqScan node
which did not make it into the tree. Attached fixes it. Also, wondering if
the
