Re: reorganizing partitioning code

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.

Thanks,
Amit