| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition() |
| Date: | 2017-06-15 09:00:22 |
| Message-ID: | b838aa95-da25-6b51-dafa-856e51aee62c@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/06/15 17:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Both of the above comments are not related to the bug that is being fixed, but
>>> they apply to the same code where the bug exists. So instead of fixing it
>>> twice, may be we should expand the scope of this work to cover other
>>> refactoring needed in this area. That might save us some rebasing and commits.
>>
>> Are you saying that the patch posted on that thread should be brought over
>> and discussed here?
>
> Not the whole patch, but that one particular comment, which applies to
> the existing code in ATExecAttachPartition(). If we fix the existing
> code in ATExecAttachPartition(), the refactoring patch there will
> inherit it when rebased.
Yes, I too meant only the refactoring patch, which I see as patch 0001 in
the series of patches that Jeevan posted with the following message:
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-06-15 09:05:09 | Re: A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition() |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2017-06-15 08:54:13 | Typo in comment in ecpg datetime.c |