On 2017/11/30 7:15, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that >>> wasn't based on a valid assumption. I was wrongly assuming that all hash >>> partitions for a given modulus (largest modulus) must exist at any given >>> time, but that isn't the case. >> >> Committed 0003 with some adjustments: >> >> * Renamed the new test to partition_prune. >> * Moved the test to what I thought was a better place in the schedule >> file, and made it consistent between serial_schedule and >> parallel_schedule. >> * commutates -> commuted >> * removed wrong /* empty */ comment >> * Updated expected output. It surprised me a bit that the tests >> weren't passing as you had them, but the differences I got - all >> related to mc3p_default - seemed correct to me > > Committed 0004 after reviewing the code and testing that it seems to > work as advertised.
Thank you. > 0005 looks like it might need to be split into smaller patches. More > broadly, the commit messages you wrote for for 0005, 0006, and 0008 > don't seem to me to do a great job explaining the motivation for the > changes which they make. They tell me what the patches do, but not > why they are doing it. If there's an email in this thread that > explains that stuff, please point me to it and I'll go back and reread > it more carefully; if not, I think I definitely need some more > explanation both of the mission of each patch and the reason why the > patch set is divided up in the way that it is. I'm working on a revised version of these patches to address recent comments by Horiguchi-san. I will also consider the points above before sending the new version. Thanks, Amit
