Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect
Date: 2018-05-02 06:14:52
Message-ID: 20180502061452.GA1723@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:38:22PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Perhaps, I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it might
> be better to have the word "partitioned" in the message.

That's what Peter is pointing to upthread and what the v1 of upthread
was doing. I would tend to think to just keep the code simple and don't
add those extra checks, but I am fine to be beaten as well.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2018-05-02 06:26:58 Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-05-02 05:41:32 Re: A few warnings on Windows