Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:51 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:39 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:10 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 04:13:04PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > Patch 0002 needed a rebase, because a conflicting change to
> > > > expected/rules.out has since been committed.
> > >
> > > The cfbot reports new conflicts since about a week ago with this patch:
> > > Could you send a rebased patch? In the meantime I'll switch the cf
> entry to
> > > Waiting on Author.
> >
> > Turns out I had never compiled this patch set to exercise xml and lz4
> > tests, whose output files contained view definitions shown using \d
> > that also needed to be updated in the 0002 patch.
> >
> > Fixed in the attached updated version.
>
> cfbot tells me it found a conflict when applying v7 on the latest
> HEAD. Fixed in the attached v8.
>
> Hi,
For patch 02, in the description:

present for locking views during execition

Typo: execution.

+ * to be used by the executor to lock the view relation and for the
+ * planner to be able to record the view relation OID in the PlannedStmt
+ * that it produces for the query.

I think the sentence about executor can be placed after the sentence for
the planner.

For patch 01, GetRelPermissionInfo():

+ return perminfo;
+ }
+ else

keyword 'else' is not needed - the else block can be left-indented.

Cheers