Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
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 06:12:38
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8vAPFNqoLA03bwK=LwyupMBuh6A472nTC3RkBZwcrxuw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-05-11 06:27:12 Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-05-11 05:48:15 Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?