On 2017/03/06 17:01, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > 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.
That's perhaps true. I guess it depends on who reads it. Someone might think the comment is incorrect because *not all* temporary child tables are excluded. > There's no point in changing it while we are not > touching temp tables handling. We can leave it for the committer to decide, maybe. Committers often rewrite surrounding comments to improve wording, correcting factual errors, etc. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
