On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/06/15 17:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >>>> Both of the above comments are not related to the bug that is being fixed, >>>> but >>>> they apply to the same code where the bug exists. So instead of fixing it >>>> twice, may be we should expand the scope of this work to cover other >>>> refactoring needed in this area. That might save us some rebasing and >>>> commits. >>> >>> Are you saying that the patch posted on that thread should be brought over >>> and discussed here? >> >> Not the whole patch, but that one particular comment, which applies to >> the existing code in ATExecAttachPartition(). If we fix the existing >> code in ATExecAttachPartition(), the refactoring patch there will >> inherit it when rebased. > > Yes, I too meant only the refactoring patch, which I see as patch 0001 in > the series of patches that Jeevan posted with the following message: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NeR%3D%2BTMRTw6oq_5WrJF%2B_xG91k_nGUub29Lnv5-qmQHw%40mail.gmail.com
I think we don't need to move that patch over to here, unless you see that some of that refactoring is useful here. I think, we should continue this thread and patch independent of what happens there. If and when this patch gets committed, that patch will need to be refactored. -- 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
