Re: Obsolete comment in ExecInsert()

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Obsolete comment in ExecInsert()
Date: 2022-09-29 08:10:09
Message-ID: CAPmGK16AbwWZsyTc3jtsy+Z10n35myT3j=Cjii+f2gieeGMgnw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I think the “or a tuple has come for a different relation than that
> > for the accumulated tuples" part in the comment is a leftover from an
> > earlier version of the patch [1]. As the code shows, we do not handle
> > that case anymore, so I think we should remove that part from the
> > comment. Attached is a patch for that.
>
> +1, but what remains still seems awkwardly worded. How about something
> like "When we've reached the desired batch size, perform the insertion"?

+1 for that change. Pushed that way.

Thanks for reviewing!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Polina Bungina 2022-09-29 08:18:43 Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall
Previous Message Junwang Zhao 2022-09-29 08:09:51 Re: [patch] Adding an assertion to report too long hash table name