On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/03/06 16:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On 2017/03/06 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> This comment is not completely correct. Children can be temp tables, >>>> they just cannot be temp tables of other backends. It seems to me that >>>> you could still keep this code simple and remove has_child.. >>> >>> I updated the comment. I recall having posted a patch for that once, but >>> perhaps went unnoticed. >> >> The existing comment only specifies "temp tables" and not "temp table >> of other backends". The new comment keeps that part same and adds >> partitioned table case. So, I don't see any reason to change the "temp >> tables" to "temp table of other backends" in this patch. > > Hmm. A separate patch might be fine but why not fix the incorrect part > while we are updating the whole comment anyway.
There must be a reason why that comment is written the way it's written. I guess, "from other backends" part of "temp tables" story has been explained just few lines above and the author/s didn't want to repeat it again. There's no point in changing it while we are not touching temp tables handling. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
