| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 06:31:02 |
| Message-ID: | 67ea1a15-d8d6-95f0-82ff-a08275c17488@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/05/11 15:12, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for looking
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 17:48, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If this is some new coding rule, then that's the first I've heard of it.
No, I don't know of any official coding rule either.
> Scanning over the result of git grep -E "if \(!\w{1,}\)" it looks like
> we have a bit of cleanup work to do before we can comply.
>
> FWIW, I've previously been told off for the opposite.
OK, no problem if you would like to leave it the way it it as it may just
be a matter of personal preference. I just told you what I recall being
told a few times and it was a bit easy to spot in such a small patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-11 06:36:05 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-11 06:27:12 | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |