On 2018/12/18 10:57, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:49:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Okay, this suggestion sounds fine to me. Thanks!
>
> And committed with all your suggestions included. Thanks for the
> discussion.
Thank you!
Regards,
Amit
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:49:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, this suggestion sounds fine to me. Thanks!
And committed with all your suggestions included. Thanks for the
discussion.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 06:35:03PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> As far as the information content of this comment is concerned, I think
> it'd be more useful to word this comment such that it is applicable to
> different functions than to word it such that it is applicable to
> different queries.
On 2018/12/17 18:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
>> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
>> follow the comment, but I think that
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
> follow the comment, but I think that would be misleading. I think the
> plural would
On 2018/12/17 17:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:41:01PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Okay, let's use "Functions" then, although I wonder if you shouldn't tweak
>> it later when you commit the pg_partition_root patch?
>
> There are already two calls to pg_partition_tree fo
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:41:01PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Okay, let's use "Functions" then, although I wonder if you shouldn't tweak
> it later when you commit the pg_partition_root patch?
There are already two calls to pg_partition_tree for each one of the two
relkinds tested.
--
Michael
On 2018/12/17 16:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:14:07PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> --- A table not part of a partition tree works is the only member listed.
>> +-- A table not part of a partition tree is the only member listed.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> -- Table that is not
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:14:07PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> --- A table not part of a partition tree works is the only member listed.
> +-- A table not part of a partition tree is the only member listed.
>
> How about:
>
> -- Table that is not part of any partition tree is the only member lis
On 2018/12/17 15:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:40:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
>> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
>> tests is imprecise about the expected behav
Hi,
On 2018/12/17 15:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi Amit,
> (CC: -hackers)
>
> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
> tests is imprecise about the expected behavior of the functions.
>
> Do you
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:40:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
> tests is imprecise about the expected behavior of the functions.
>
> Do you think that some
12 matches
Mail list logo
