On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> PFA updated patch.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. fixed in the attached patch.
>
> + * The datums in datums array are arranged in the increasing order defined by
>
> Suggest: in increasing order as d
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. fixed in the attached patch.
+ * The datums in datums array are arranged in the increasing order defined by
Suggest: in increasing order as defined
There's a second place where the same change is needed.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> + * PartitionBoundInfoData structures for two partitioned table with
> exactly same
>
> should be "tables".
Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. fixed in the attached patch.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgr
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
> Julien Rouhaund, who has proposed a patch for partition-wise ordering
> mentioned to me offlist that the comments for PartitionBoundInfoData
> do not mention the fact that the datums in datums array are ordered. I
> think that's
Hi,
Julien Rouhaund, who has proposed a patch for partition-wise ordering
mentioned to me offlist that the comments for PartitionBoundInfoData
do not mention the fact that the datums in datums array are ordered. I
think that's important to mention there. So here's patch to do that.
The comment I
