|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|Cc:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: reorganizing partitioning code|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018/03/22 2:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> David Steele wrote:
>>> Are you planning to update this patch? If not, I think it should be
>>> marked as Returned with Feedback and submitted to the next CF once it
>>> has been updated.
>> This is no new development, only code movement. I think it would be
>> worse to have three different branches of partitioning code, v10
>> "basic", v11 "powerful but not reorganized", v12 "reorganized". I'd
>> rather have only v10 "basic" and v11+ "powerful".
>> Let's keep this entry open till the last minute.
> Nonetheless, it's March 21. David's point is that it's time to get a
> move on.
I'm sorry it took me a while to reply on this thread.
Due to quite a few changes to the partitioning-related code recently and
also considering some pending patches which might touch the code moved
around by this patch, I'd been putting off rebasing this patch. Although,
I should have said that before without waiting until today to do so. Sorry.
FWIW, I did manage to rebase it this morning and posting it here.
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2018-03-22 02:59:07||Re: Boolean partitions syntax|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2018-03-22 02:38:31||Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE|