Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c
Date: 2019-11-04 16:58:20
Message-ID: 20191104165820.GA22823@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Oct-19, Etsuro Fujita wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:56 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> > Yeah, agreed. Instead of "the null comes from" I would use "the
> > partition that stores nulls".
>
> I think your wording is better than mine. Thank you for reviewing!

Thanks for getting this done.

> > While reviewing your patch I noticed a few places where we use an odd
> > pattern in switches, which can be simplified as shown here.
>
> case PARTITION_STRATEGY_LIST:
> - num_indexes = bound->ndatums;
> + return bound->ndatums;
> break;
>
> Why not remove the break statement?

You're right, I should have done that. However, I backed out of doing
this change after all; it seems a pretty minor stylistic adjustment of
little value.

Thanks for reviewing all the same,

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-11-04 17:01:46 Re: Issues with PAM : log that it failed, whether it actually failed or not
Previous Message Adrien Nayrat 2019-11-04 16:26:40 Re: Log statement sample - take two