Re: a comment in joinrel.c: compute_partition_bounds()

2021-10-07 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Langote wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:41 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > Rereading the comment, I think it would be better to add “will” to the > > second part “the partitions with the same cardinal positions form the > > pairs” as well. Updated patch attache

Re: a comment in joinrel.c: compute_partition_bounds()

2021-10-06 Thread Amit Langote
Fujita-san, On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:41 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:20 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:34 PM Amit Langote > > wrote: > > > I think there's a word missing in the following comment: > > > > > > /* > > > * See if the p

Re: a comment in joinrel.c: compute_partition_bounds()

2021-10-06 Thread Etsuro Fujita
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:20 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:34 PM Amit Langote wrote: > > I think there's a word missing in the following comment: > > > > /* > > * See if the partition bounds for inputs are exactly the same, in > > * which case we do

Re: a comment in joinrel.c: compute_partition_bounds()

2021-09-24 Thread Etsuro Fujita
Hi Amit-san, On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:34 PM Amit Langote wrote: > I think there's a word missing in the following comment: > > /* > * See if the partition bounds for inputs are exactly the same, in > * which case we don't need to work hard: the join rel have the same >