> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 11:59 PM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Cc: Andres Freund; Amit Kapila; pgsql-hackers
> Subject: ##freemail## Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: [HACKERS]
> CustomScan support on readfuncs.c)
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> > The new callbacks of T_ExtensibleNode will replace the necessity to
> > form and deform process of private values, like as:
> > https://github.com/pg-strom/devel/blob/master/src/gpujoin.c#L114
>
> Yeah.
>
> > It transforms a bunch of internal data of CustomScan (similar to the
> > extended fields in T_ExtensibleNode) to/from the node functions
> > understandable forms for copy, input and output support.
> > I think it implies you proposition is workable.
> >
> > I'd like to follow this proposition basically.
> > On the other hands, I have two points I want to pay attention.
> >
> > 1. At this moment, it is allowed to define a larger structure that
> > embeds CustomPath and CustomScanState by extension. How do we treat
> > this coding manner in this case? Especially, CustomScanState has no
> > private pointer dereference because it assumes an extension define
> > a larger structure. Of course, we don't need to care about node
> > operations on Path and PlanState nodes, but right now.
>
> I see no real advantage in letting a CustomPath be larger. If
> custom_private can include extension-defined node types, that seems
> good enough. On the other hand, if CustomScanState can be larger,
> that seems fine. We don't really need any special support for that,
> do we?
>
Yes. Right now, we have no code path that handles PlanState or its
inheritance using node operations. So, it is not a real problem.
> > 2. I intended to replace LibraryName and SymbolName fields from the
> > CustomScanMethods structure by integration of extensible node type.
> > We had to give a pair of these identifiers because custom scan provider
> > has no registration points at this moment. A little concern is extension
> > has to assume a particular filename of itself.
> > But, probably, it shall be a separated discussion. My preference is
> > preliminary registration of custom scan provider by its name, as well
> > as extensible node.
>
> Seems like we could just leave the CustomScan stuff alone and worry
> about this as a separate facility.
>
OK
> > Towards the last question; whether *_private shall be void * or List *,
> > I want to keep fdw_private and custom_private as List * pointer, because
> > a new node type definition is a bit overdone job if this FDW or CSP will
> > take only a few private fields with primitive data types.
> > It is a preferable features when extension defines ten or more private
> > fields.
>
> Well, I suggested Node *, not void *. A Node can be a List, but not
> every Node is a List.
>
It is pretty good!
The attached patch (primary one) implements the above idea.
Now ExtensibleNode works as a basis structure of data container,
regardless of CustomScan and ForeignScan.
Also, fdw_private and custom_private are de-defined to Node * type
from List * type. It affected to a few FDW APIs.
The secondary patch is a demonstration of new ExtensibleNode using
postgres_fdw extension. Its private data are expected to be packed
in a list with a particular order. Self defined structure allows to
keep these variables without ugly pack/unpacking.
Thanks,
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>