From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multi column range partition table |
Date: | 2017-07-07 01:06:18 |
Message-ID: | 05b0da28-8e8d-2728-8f7f-5a0d1d13a7fd@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/07/06 18:30, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> 0001 is your patch to tidy up check_new_partition_bound() (must be
>> applied before 0002)
>>
>
> I pushed this first patch, simplifying check_new_partition_bound() for
> range partitions, since it seemed like a good simplification, but note
> that I don't think that was actually the cause of the latent bug you
> saw upthread.
I like how simple check_new_partition_bound() has now become.
> I think the real issue was in partition_rbound_cmp() -- normally, if
> the upper bound of one partition coincides with the lower bound of
> another, that function would report the upper bound as the smaller
> one, but that logic breaks if any of the bound values are infinite,
> since then it will exit early, returning 0, without ever comparing the
> "lower" flags on the bounds.
>
> I'm tempted to push a fix for that independently, since it's a bug
> waiting to happen, even though it's not possible to hit it currently.
Oops, you're right. Thanks for the fix.
Regards,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-07-07 01:06:46 | Re: Out of date comment in predicate.c |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2017-07-07 00:02:28 | New partitioning - some feedback |