| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fix possible optimizations in ATExecAttachPartition() |
| Date: | 2017-06-13 20:42:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZVd8NGp2DTDUprhkgrt8enLLeN-nw7=DbB_DS8Y95jVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking the same while writing the patch posted on the thread
> "A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()" [1]. That patch
> adds the break you mention in 2, but didn't do anything about point 1.
>
> In any case, +1 to your patch. I'll rebase if someone decides to commit
> it first.
If the patch I posted in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYmW9VwCWDpe7eXUxeKmAKOxmg8itgFkB5UTQTq4SnTjQ%40mail.gmail.com
gets committed, all of this code will be gone entirely, so this will
be moot. If we decide to repair the existing broken logic rather than
ripping it out entirely then this is probably a good idea, but I hope
that's not what happens.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Piotr Stefaniak | 2017-06-13 20:52:32 | Re: pgindent (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Preventive maintenance in advance of pgindent run.) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-13 20:39:41 | Re: v10beta pg_catalog diagrams |