On 6 February 2018 at 16:11, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. I'm fine with it. Well may I make > some comments on the patch?
Sure, always welcome. > > - It seems to me that the if (!should_warp_around) block and else > block are better be transposed so that make the bail out code > closer to the exit condition check as the previous code > was. (In other was the second block should be if > (should_wrap...), not if (!should_warp..). Yeah, I think it looks equally good that way, and like you said, the current code does it that way. So in the attached patch, I have swapped the two conditions. > > - The following comment needs a "the" before the "first", maybe. > + /* Loop back to first partial plan. */ Now since we are not changing this line in the patch, I have avoided that. But the committer can very well make this change, all though I am not sure myself about the grammar. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
fix_hang_issue_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
