| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Crash in partition-wise join involving dummy partitioned relation |
| Date: | 2018-02-06 15:42:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobnASYx2Cqcp1gbuhCu_WAVtUcef2yTC=3QfOYDpCp4CA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The comment says why it checks both bounds and part_scheme, but it
> doesn't explain why we check nparts, part_rels etc. My patch had that
> explanation.
Hmm, well, I couldn't understand it from your comment. I'm fine with
adding more explanation, but it needs to be brief yet clear.
> Or may be with these changes those checks are not needed.
> Should we remove those?
I think you had them there originally so that you could Assert() on
them, but I do suspect that they're not all needed at runtime.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-06 15:46:12 | Re: pgsql: Support parallel btree index builds. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-06 15:12:04 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |