From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Olaf Gawenda <olaf(dot)gw(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: multi-column range partition constraint |
Date: | 2017-05-15 02:01:06 |
Message-ID: | 5fbb60c9-d360-45c7-ef15-4ff3c3500926@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/05/14 1:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached is the correct version.
>
> Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with
> the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item. You argued
> that wouldn't work because the contents of partexprs_item was
> modified, but that's not so: partexprs_item in
> get_range_key_properties is a pointer the partexprs_item in the
> caller. When it modifies *partexprs_item, it's not changing the
> contents of the ListCell itself, just the caller's ListCell *.
I see.
> I also ran pgindent over the patch.
Oops, had forgotten about pgindent.
> Also committed 0002. In that case, I removed CHECK (...) from the
> output; the caller can always add that if it's desired, but since a
> partitioning constraint is NOT a CHECK constraint I don't actually
> think it's useful in most cases. I also tweaked the regression tests
> slightly.
Thanks for reviewing and committing. Agree about not including CHECK ().
Regards,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-05-15 02:45:57 | Re: PG 10 release notes |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2017-05-15 01:50:59 | Re: [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternative hosts when some errors occur |