On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> > <jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> I have fixed the crash in attached patch.
> >> Also the patch needed bit of adjustments due to recent commit.
> >> I have re-based the patch on latest commit.
> > + bool has_default; /* Is there a default partition?
> > Currently false
> > + * for a range partitioned table */
> > + int default_index; /* Index of the default list
> > partition. -1 for
> > + * range partitioned tables */
> We have has_null and null_index for list partitioning. There
> null_index == -1 = has_null. May be Rahila and/or Jeevan just copied
> that style. Probably we should change that as well?
I agree with Ashutosh.
I had given similar comment on earlier version of patch
and Rahila reverted
with above reasoning, hence did not change the logic she introduced.
Probably its a good idea to have a separate patch that removes has_null
in a separate thread.