Hi Ashutosh, I had forgotten about this thread, but Michael's ping email brought it to my attention.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 11:12 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Thanks for rebasing patch. It applies cleanly still. Here are some comments Thanks for the review. > @@ -3320,7 +3338,9 @@ make_one_partition_rbound(PartitionKey key, int index, > List *datums, bool lower) > * partition_rbound_cmp > * > * Return for two range bounds whether the 1st one (specified in datums1, > > I think it's better to reword it as. "For two range bounds decide whether ... > > - * kind1, and lower1) is <, =, or > the bound specified in *b2. > + * kind1, and lower1) is <, =, or > the bound specified in *b2. 0 is > returned if > + * equal and the 1-based index of the first mismatching bound if unequal; > + * multiplied by -1 if the 1st bound is smaller. > > This sentence makes sense after the above correction. I liked this change, > requires very small changes in other parts. +1 to your suggested rewording, although I wrote: "For two range bounds this decides whether..." > /* > @@ -3495,7 +3518,7 @@ static int > partition_range_bsearch(int partnatts, FmgrInfo *partsupfunc, > Oid *partcollation, > PartitionBoundInfo boundinfo, > - PartitionRangeBound *probe, bool *is_equal) > + PartitionRangeBound *probe, bool *is_equal, int32 > *cmpval) > > Please update the prologue explaining the new argument. Done. Actually, I noticed that *is_equal was unused in this function's only caller. *cmpval == 0 already gives that, so removed is_equal parameter. Attached updated version. -- Amit Langote EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v4-0001-Improve-check-new-partition-bound-error-position-.patch
Description: Binary data
