| 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: | 2018-06-07 03:57:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20180607035732.gnusnfls2bponmus@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jun-07, David Rowley wrote:
> Hi Alvaro,
>
> Thanks for looking at this. I thought it was strange to pass in both
> resultRelInfos. I ended up just making the 2nd param a bool to
> indicate of tuple routing was used.
Good call.
> I'm personally not really for or against having the function. I agree
> that it's slightly weird, but anyway, here's the patch. I'll leave it
> up to you to which one you prefer, v3 or v4.
Hm I was thinking this new function would be companion to ExecConstrains
(a fact I used in the name I proposed,) so it'd be in the same file
(probably right after it.)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-06-07 04:05:22 | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-07 03:38:12 | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |