|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>|
|Cc:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch thread:
> I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in
> separate thread. So it is new thread.
Splitting concepts into different threads may be fine, and usually
recommended. Splitting a set of patches into multiple entries to ease
review and your goal to get a patch integrated and posted all these
into the same thread is usually recommended. Now posting a full set
of patches across multiple threads, in way so as they have
dependencies with each other, is what I would call a confusing
situation. That's hard to follow.
> The idea of this patch is following: If you read the code, partitioned tables
> do not have any options (you will not find RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED in
> boolRelOpts, intRelOpts, realRelOpts, stringRelOpts and enumRelOpts in
> reloption.c), but it uses StdRdOptions to store them (these no options).
I am not even sure that we actually need that. What kind of reloption
you would think would suit into this subset?
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-10-07 06:52:25||Re: Remove some code for old unsupported versions of MSVC|
|Previous Message||David Rowley||2019-10-07 05:35:21||Re: Change atoi to strtol in same place|