Re: Properly pathify the union planner

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:34 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The attached is roughly what I had in mind.  I've not taken the time
>> to see what comments need to be updated, so the attached aims only to
>> assist discussion.

> I like this idea.

I haven't studied the underlying problem yet, so I'm not quite
buying into whether we need this struct at all ... but assuming
we do, I feel like "PlannerContext" is a pretty poor name.
There's basically nothing to distinguish it from "PlannerInfo",
not to mention that readers would likely assume it's a memory
context of some sort.

Perhaps "SubqueryContext" or the like would be better?  It
still has the conflict with memory contexts though.

            regards, tom lane