On 2017/07/06 18:30, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> 0001 is your patch to tidy up check_new_partition_bound() (must be >> applied before 0002) >> > > I pushed this first patch, simplifying check_new_partition_bound() for > range partitions, since it seemed like a good simplification, but note > that I don't think that was actually the cause of the latent bug you > saw upthread.
I like how simple check_new_partition_bound() has now become. > I think the real issue was in partition_rbound_cmp() -- normally, if > the upper bound of one partition coincides with the lower bound of > another, that function would report the upper bound as the smaller > one, but that logic breaks if any of the bound values are infinite, > since then it will exit early, returning 0, without ever comparing the > "lower" flags on the bounds. > > I'm tempted to push a fix for that independently, since it's a bug > waiting to happen, even though it's not possible to hit it currently. Oops, you're right. Thanks for the fix. Regards, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
