On 2018/01/19 18:50, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> FYI ...
>
> For the pending update-partition-key patch, we would again require the
> rel variable for UPDATE. So in the rebased update-partition-key patch
> [1], 'rel' is assigned the root partitioned table. But this time, I
> have used the already open
FYI ...
For the pending update-partition-key patch, we would again require the
rel variable for UPDATE. So in the rebased update-partition-key patch
[1], 'rel' is assigned the root partitioned table. But this time, I
have used the already opened node->rootResultRelInfo to get the root
partitioned
(2018/01/18 4:46), Tom Lane wrote:
Pushed. I think the long delay on this is really my fault for having
raised an incorrect objection initially --- apologies for that.
Thanks for committing!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Etsuro Fujita writes:
> (2018/01/15 11:35), Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/01/15 11:28, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> Seems like this has gotten a review (and quite a bit of down-stream
>>> discussion that seemed pretty positive), and the latest patch still
>>> applies cleanly and passes the regression
(2018/01/15 11:35), Amit Langote wrote:
On 2018/01/15 11:28, Stephen Frost wrote:
Seems like this has gotten a review (and quite a bit of down-stream
discussion that seemed pretty positive), and the latest patch still
applies cleanly and passes the regression tests- is there some reason
it's sti
On 2018/01/15 11:28, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Fujita-san, Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/06/21 16:59, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> Commit d3cc37f1d801a6b5cad9bf179274a8d767f1ee50 added this to
>>> ExecInitModifyTable:
>>>
>>> + /* The root table RT index is
Fujita-san, Amit,
* Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> On 2017/06/21 16:59, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Commit d3cc37f1d801a6b5cad9bf179274a8d767f1ee50 added this to
> > ExecInitModifyTable:
> >
> > + /* The root table RT index is at the head of the partitioned_rels list
> > */
(2017/11/28 11:18), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
This status is misleading, so I switched it back to "needs review"
(please be careful about that!).
I think I forgot to change that status. Sorr
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
This status is misleading, so I switched it back to "needs review"
(please be careful about that!). I can still apply the patch
correctly. Sorry I am not taking the time to have a meaningful o
