From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Allowing extended stats on foreign and partitioned tables |
Date: | 2017-04-17 05:04:16 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRdHrXmCKTECqeMv3GhkGsJqRkXndCTJyhsSDtOeWtMD=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/10/17 06:18, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> This isn't exactly about this particular thread. But I noticed, that
>> after we introduced RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE, we required to change a
>> number of conditions to include this relkind. We missed some places in
>> initial commits and fixed those later. I am wondering whether we
>> should creates macros clubbing relevant relkinds together based on the
>> purpose of the tests e.g. IS_RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(). When a new relkind
>> is added, one can examine these macros to check whether the new
>> relkind fits in the given macro. If all those macros are placed
>> together, there is a high chance that we will not miss any place in
>> the initial commit itself.
>
> I think this is worth a try.
Thanks, will try to come up with something ASAP.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-17 05:24:01 | Re: Inadequate parallel-safety check for SubPlans |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-04-17 05:03:24 | Re: Inadequate parallel-safety check for SubPlans |