| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dropping partitioned table drops a previously detached partition |
| Date: | 2017-06-14 05:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAFjFpRcMtQ6cjpKNUEa4VjsZNttefYcszSktEoJVwztkfWBKrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have added tests to the
>> 0001-Dependency-between-partitioned-table-and-partition_v1.patch. Please
>> find attached the v2 patch.
>
> Thanks. Committed.
Thanks.
> I don't think the 0002 patch is an improvement -
> sure, it keeps those things in sync, but it also makes the code harder
> to read. On balance I think it's a negative.
>
I don't think the code is hard to read, but I agree that the macro
name TABLE_COMPOSITE_TYPE_DEPENDENCY isn't conveying the real sense.
But that's not a topic for this thread. I will start a separate a
thread.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-06-14 05:02:57 | Re: Dropping partitioned table drops a previously detached partition |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2017-06-14 04:58:44 | type of release note of PG10 |