| From: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-06-04 18:46:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAOG9ApFvvTfnZ0HphbDU4ieo9u3KFYS7_b3=Wz7jG298hPd86Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
<jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What is the reason the new patch does not mention of violating rows
>> when a new partition overlaps with default?
>> Is it because more than one row could be violating the condition?
>
>
> This is because, for reporting the violating error, I had to function
> ExecBuildSlotValueDescription() public. Per Amit's comment I have
> removed this change and let the overlapping error without row contains.
> I think this is analogus to other functions that are throwing violation
> error
> but are not local to execMain.c.
>
ok thanks.
--
Beena Emerson
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-06-04 18:55:03 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-06-04 18:44:20 | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |