On 2018/06/07 12:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-07, David Rowley wrote:
>> I'm personally not really for or against having the function. I agree
>> that it's slightly weird, but anyway, here's the patch. I'll leave it
>> up to you to which one you prefer, v3 or v4.
>
> Hm I was thinking this new function would be companion to ExecConstrains
> (a fact I used in the name I proposed,) so it'd be in the same file
> (probably right after it.)
Or we could just not have a separate function and put the logic that
determines whether or not to check the partition constraint right before
the following piece of code in ExecConstraints
if (check_partition_constraint && resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheck &&
!ExecPartitionCheck(resultRelInfo, slot, estate))
ExecPartitionCheckEmitError(resultRelInfo, slot, estate);
It seems that ExecConstraint receives all the information that's needed to
make that happen.
Thanks,
Amit
