Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10029.1215442263@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements
Re: [PATCHES] WIP: executor_hook for pg_stat_statements |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:03 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> One issue is "tag" field. The type is now uint32. It's enough in my plugin,
>> but if some people need to add more complex structures in PlannedStmt,
>> Node type would be better rather than uint32. Which is better?
> I was imagining that tag was just an index to another data structure,
> but probably better if its a pointer.
I don't want the tag there at all, much less converted to a pointer.
What would the semantics be of copying the node, and why?
Please justify why you must have this and can't do what you want some
other way.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: