Re: Update comment in ExecPartitionCheck

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update comment in ExecPartitionCheck
Date: 2017-08-25 17:28:35
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYs+6Ri+Hse0cxGNgEZqR0YigAD22uG3LGJihoc4Jri2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck():
>
> if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext))
> {
> char *val_desc;
> Relation orig_rel = rel;
>
> /* See the comment above. */
> if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot)
>
> should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the
> code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just
> below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: "See
> the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that.

Hrm. I'm not sure I understand which comment in ExecConstraints()
this is supposed to refer to. Maybe we need to think a bit harder
about how to make this clear.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-25 17:31:48 Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-25 17:28:15 Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions