Re: multi-column range partition constraint

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Olaf Gawenda <olaf(dot)gw(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: multi-column range partition constraint
Date: 2017-05-13 16:07:17
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa=PcJ_yBRkZttteWQkJPftYeC0B4LCQ2k46UB5DNeKQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is the correct version.

Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with
the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item. You argued
that wouldn't work because the contents of partexprs_item was
modified, but that's not so: partexprs_item in
get_range_key_properties is a pointer the partexprs_item in the
caller. When it modifies *partexprs_item, it's not changing the
contents of the ListCell itself, just the caller's ListCell *. I also
ran pgindent over the patch.

Also committed 0002. In that case, I removed CHECK (...) from the
output; the caller can always add that if it's desired, but since a
partitioning constraint is NOT a CHECK constraint I don't actually
think it's useful in most cases. I also tweaked the regression tests
slightly.

Thanks again.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2017-05-13 16:26:15 proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-05-13 14:29:09 Re: Hash Functions