| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |
| Date: | 2018-06-06 21:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20180606210847.qmefnjlqyjlqwvam@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-May-10, David Rowley wrote:
> Yeah, the comments do need work. In order to make it a bit easier to
> document I changed the way that check_partition_constr is set. This is
> now done with an if/else if/else clause for both COPY and INSERT.
>
> Hopefully, that's easier to understand and prevents further mistakes.
I wonder if we should create a new small function that takes the two
resultRelInfos and returns the correct boolean --maybe something like
ExecConstraintsPartConstrNeedsRecheck()-- and then the smarts are in a
single place and we diminish the risk of a divergence. It looks like a
very ad-hoc thing to have a function for, but then the new argument to
ExecConstraints() *is* pretty ad-hoc already, so encapsulating it seems
better.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-06 21:21:03 | Re: Supporting tls-server-end-point as SCRAM channel binding for OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2018-06-06 20:53:06 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |