On 2017/03/06 16:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/03/06 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> This comment is not completely correct. Children can be temp tables, >>> they just cannot be temp tables of other backends. It seems to me that >>> you could still keep this code simple and remove has_child.. >> >> I updated the comment. I recall having posted a patch for that once, but >> perhaps went unnoticed. > > The existing comment only specifies "temp tables" and not "temp table > of other backends". The new comment keeps that part same and adds > partitioned table case. So, I don't see any reason to change the "temp > tables" to "temp table of other backends" in this patch.
Hmm. A separate patch might be fine but why not fix the incorrect part while we are updating the whole comment anyway. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers