On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Amit Langote
<langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/06/15 17:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> Both of the above comments are not related to the bug that is being fixed, 
>>>> but
>>>> they apply to the same code where the bug exists. So instead of fixing it
>>>> twice, may be we should expand the scope of this work to cover other
>>>> refactoring needed in this area. That might save us some rebasing and 
>>>> commits.
>>> Are you saying that the patch posted on that thread should be brought over
>>> and discussed here?
>> Not the whole patch, but that one particular comment, which applies to
>> the existing code in ATExecAttachPartition(). If we fix the existing
>> code in ATExecAttachPartition(), the refactoring patch there will
>> inherit it when rebased.
> Yes, I too meant only the refactoring patch, which I see as patch 0001 in
> the series of patches that Jeevan posted with the following message:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NeR%3D%2BTMRTw6oq_5WrJF%2B_xG91k_nGUub29Lnv5-qmQHw%40mail.gmail.com

I think we don't need to move that patch over to here, unless you see
that some of that refactoring is useful here. I think, we should
continue this thread and patch independent of what happens there. If
and when this patch gets committed, that patch will need to be

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to