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
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 |