| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <amitlan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy |
| Date: | 2024-02-20 05:39:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqsfzhBrEAyr2Kz5joazA6=BDnvSDg=KYZT6=yTrML_Jw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:50, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
> > get_matching_range_bounds().
> > Above that function we have:
> > * 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.
> >
> Yeah, that seems worth fixing in master as, I agree, the comment is
> wrong. Possibly, we considered supporting <> for RANGE partitioning
> at some point, I don't recall.
>
> I was also working on a fix for what I mentioned in [1], which, I
> think, is master-only material. I'd say we can fix the comment as
> part of that.
>
> The patch for both is attached.
I've pushed this patch.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2024-02-20 07:37:06 | BUG #18353: PG16.2 release note doc bug in "In contrib/bloom, fix overly tight assertion ..." |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2024-02-20 05:29:45 | BUG #18352: signature could not be verified for pgdg-common |