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
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 |