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
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 |