On 2018/04/27 22:42, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat >> <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> +1. I think we're really abusing equalTupleDescs() for purposes for >>>> which it was not invented. Instead of changing it, let's invent a new >>>> function that tests for the thing partitioning cares about (same >>>> ordering of the same columns with the same type information) and call >>>> it logicallyEqualTupleDescs() or something like that. >>> >>> Why don't we just rely on the output of convert_tuples_by_name(), >>> which it seems is always called right now? What's advantage of adding >>> another tuple descriptor comparison? >> >> The patch I mentioned in my email above does more or less that (what >> you're saying we should do). In fact it even modifies >> convert_tuple_by_name and convert_tuple_by_name_map to remove some >> redundant computation. See that patch here if you're interested: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/825031be-942c-8c24-6163-13c27f217a3d%40lab.ntt.co.jp > > I spent some time looking at the patch. The patch clubs all kinds of > refactoring together, making review a bit difficult. I think, it would > be better to split the patch into multiple, each addressing one set of > changes, it might become easier to review.
Thanks Ashutosh for looking at it. I will think of a way to break it up when I re-propose it for the next cycle. Regards, Amit
