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: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse |
Date: | 2018-05-17 01:47:41 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_VwEYVOb_iNwjUbGPjEYKrtXoHkBnwNbw6ZQ506UCRyg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 May 2018 at 13:17, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Or maybe, change the comment to say that even the negative indexes are
> 0-based like you pointed out, *but* instead of updating the comment like
> you suggest above, change the other index value assignment statement to
> not subtract 1 from the list_length by switching order with the
> accompanying lappend; like this:
>
> if (get_rel_relkind(partrelid) != RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
> {
> + pd->indexes[i] = list_length(*leaf_part_oids);
> *leaf_part_oids = lappend_oid(*leaf_part_oids, partrelid);
> - pd->indexes[i] = list_length(*leaf_part_oids) - 1;
> }
> else
> {
That makes sense. It's probably less confusing that way.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-17 01:52:30 | partition -> partitioned |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-05-17 01:38:50 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins |