Re: Mention ordered datums in PartitionBoundInfoData comment

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. fixed in the attached patch.

+ * The datums in datums array are arranged in the increasing order defined by

Suggest: in increasing order as defined

There's a second place where the same change is needed.

+ * resp. For range and list partitions this simply means that the datums in the

I think you should spell out "respectively" instead of abbreviating to "resp".

+ * datums array are arranged in the increasing order defined by the partition
+ * key collation.

It's not just the collation but also, and I think more importantly,
the operator class. And there can be multiple columns, and thus
multiple opclases/collations. Maybe "defined by the partition key's
operator classes and collations".

+ * PartitionBoundInfoData structures for two partitioned tables with exactly
+ * same bounds look exactly same.

This doesn't seem to me to add much.

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