| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse |
| Date: | 2018-05-16 19:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobdZknG_ZXRqdd5dLTBEQspu-1b5=Tm6r4_WSi+gadznw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:28 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for committing. Although, I disagree with your tweak:
>
> + * 1-based index into the *pds list.
>
> I think that's making the same mistake as the last comment did. You
> think it's 1-based because the index is being set with list_length
> rather than list_length - 1, but it can do that simply because the
> item has not been added to the list yet.
Uh, maybe I've got that wrong. We can say 0-based instead if that's
right. I just didn't want to say that in one case it was 0-based and
in the other case make no mention.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-16 19:29:14 | Re: Odd procedure resolution |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-16 19:11:43 | Re: Odd procedure resolution |