| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |
| Date: | 2017-04-06 18:19:05 |
| Message-ID: | 623bcaae-112e-ced0-8c22-a84f75ae0c53@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/06/2017 08:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any
>> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes
>> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and
>> comment wording for 0001a.
>
> Looks generally sane, but I noticed a grammatical nitpick:
>
> - * Only attributes within regular relation or partition relations have
> + * Only attributes within regular relations or partition relations have
Good call -- thanks!
Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm
thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense
to do.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-04-06 18:19:14 | Re: Re: new set of psql patches for loading (saving) data from (to) text, binary files |
| Previous Message | mark | 2017-04-06 18:10:05 | Re: Postgresql10 Bug report. (pg_catalog.pg_statistic_ext does not exist) |