| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2018-05-11 05:48:15 |
| Message-ID: | 50a89653-78ce-6560-8d43-fc34a18af9b1@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi David.
On 2018/05/10 18:56, David Rowley wrote:
> On 10 May 2018 at 17:42, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Patch is good.
>>
>> The cause of this oversight is the lack of comments to explain the
>> original coding, so we need to correct that in this patch, please.
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
> 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.
>
> Patch attached.
Thanks. I like this patch, both the rewording of comments and the code
revision.
By the way,
+ !resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot)
This should be resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot == NULL, because the above
gives an impression that ri_PartitionRoot is a Boolean.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-05-11 06:12:38 | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-11 05:37:31 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |