Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: 高增琦 <pgf00a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2017-01-04 18:26:08
Message-ID: CA+TgmobpLyUUFOT-4kZQjQjaFZu1oJdL-gohvW-d8nn3E=tCww@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2016/12/27 19:07, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached should fix that.
>
> Here are the last two patches with additional information like other
> patches. Forgot to do that yesterday.

0001 has the disadvantage that get_partition_for_tuple() acquires a
side effect. That seems undesirable. At the least, it needs to be
documented in the function's header comment.

It's unclear to me why we need to do 0002. It doesn't seem like it
should be necessary, it doesn't seem like a good idea, and the commit
message you proposed is uninformative.

--
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 Alvaro Herrera 2017-01-04 18:38:17 Re: rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-04 18:18:40 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take