Re: PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()
Date: 2017-06-13 06:57:30
Message-ID: CAEZATCU_6_iRpTB9RQPdo=tbFTt_4tSvvx2eE5pVv4pYTT2dYQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13 June 2017 at 05:50, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> My initial thought, looking at the patch, is that it might be better
>> to have all the macros in one file to make them easier to maintain.
>
> Right now the macros are listed just below relkind enum in pg_class.h.
> Is that a good place or do you think, we should list them in a
> separate file?
>

Yeah, I wondered about putting them in a separate file, but I think
just below the relkind enum is probably the best place, so that people
changing that enum immediately see the first set of related things to
be updated.

>> Barring objections, I'll push my original patch and work up patches
>> for the other couple of issues I found.
>
> No objections, the patch is good to go as is. Sorry for high-jacking
> this thread.
>

No worries. I missed that other thread initially, so it was useful to
link the 2 threads together.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-06-13 07:06:27 Refreshing subscription relation state inside a transaction block
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-06-13 06:40:12 Re: RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, enrtuples and comments