On 2018/07/03 17:31, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/07/03 16:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:49:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I forgot that expand_partitioned_rtentry() will recursively call itself if
>>> a partition is itself a partitioned table, in which case the abo
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:49:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> I forgot that expand_partitioned_rtentry() will recursively call itself if
> a partition is itself a partitioned table, in which case the above
> code helps.
Actually look at the coverage reports:
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/b
Just realized something...
On 2018/07/03 15:29, Amit Langote wrote:
> Sorry for jumping in late here. I have a comment on the patch.
>
> + /* if there are no partitions then treat this as non-inheritance case.
> */
> + if (partdesc->nparts == 0)
> + {
> + parentrte->inh
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:29:36PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Why is this not near the beginning of expand_partitioned_rtentry()?
>
> Also, ISTM, this code would be unreachable because
> expand_inherited_rtentry would not call here if the above if statement is
> true, no?
FWIW, I understood tha
On 2018/07/03 15:16, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 18:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
>>> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any different here
On 3 July 2018 at 18:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
>> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any different here than
>> what you did with the original commit.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for fixing it up. It looks fine apart from "Temporation" should
> be "Temporary".
Of course, thanks.
> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any di
On 3 July 2018 at 16:55, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, the patch looks logically correct to me, I just tweaked the
> comments as per the attached. I would also back-patch that down to v11
> to keep the code consistent with HEAD.. What do you think?
Thanks for fixing it up. It looks fine apart
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:59:33PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 10:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:07:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'd rather keep an elog(ERROR) than completely remove the check.
>>
>> +1.
>
> Attached
Okay, the patch looks logical
