From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: crash with sql language partition support function |
Date: | 2018-04-13 18:08:30 |
Message-ID: | 20180413180830.rxi7gpsireq7wuu6@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think this is a good improvement. On top of that, I propose a new
file partitioning/partdefs.h with the following approximate contents.
This reduces cross-inclusion of headers to the minimum. I'm dealing
with the fallout from this now, will post a complete patch shortly.
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* partdefs.h
* Base definitions for partitioned table handling
*
* Copyright (c) 2007-2018, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
*
* src/include/partitioning/partdefs.h
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#ifndef PARTDEFS_H
#define PARTDEFS_H
typedef enum PartitionRangeDatumKind
{
PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_MINVALUE = -1, /* less than any other value */
PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_VALUE = 0, /* a specific (bounded) value */
PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_MAXVALUE = 1 /* greater than any other value */
} PartitionRangeDatumKind;
typedef struct PartitionBoundInfoData *PartitionBoundInfo;
typedef struct PartitionKeyData *PartitionKey;
typedef struct PartitionBoundSpec PartitionBoundSpec;
typedef struct PartitionDescData *PartitionDesc;
#endif /* PARTDEFS_H */
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-13 18:09:48 | Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection |
Previous Message | Garym | 2018-04-13 18:02:15 | Re: Interesting paper: Contention-Aware Lock Scheduling |