Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/06/07 0:19, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> I think we can call it a bug of StorePartitionKey(). I looked at the >> similar code in index_create() (which actually I had originally looked at >> for reference

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/06/07 1:08, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote >> wrote: >>> BTW, the places which check whether the collation to store a dependency >>> for is the database default collation don't

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Hale Boyes wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks. Committed. > > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of > the sentence "this contains the OID of the the

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Hale Boyes wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: >> Thanks. Committed. > > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of > the sentence "this contains the OID of the the

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> BTW, the places which check whether the collation to store a dependency >> for is the database default collation don't need to do that. I mean the >> following

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Kevin Hale Boyes
On 6 June 2017 at 09:19, Robert Haas wrote: > > Thanks. Committed. > The changes to catalogs.sgml has introduced a double "the" in this part of the sentence "this contains the OID of the the collation". The other section already had the double "the".

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > I think we can call it a bug of StorePartitionKey(). I looked at the > similar code in index_create() (which actually I had originally looked at > for reference when writing the partitioning code in question)

Re: [HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-04 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/06/03 1:31, Robert Haas wrote: > If you create a partitioned table in the obvious way, partcollation ends up 0: > > rhaas=# create table foo (a int, b text) partition by list (a); > CREATE TABLE > rhaas=# select * from pg_partitioned_table; > partrelid | partstrat | partnatts | partattrs

[HACKERS] sketchy partcollation handling

2017-06-02 Thread Robert Haas
If you create a partitioned table in the obvious way, partcollation ends up 0: rhaas=# create table foo (a int, b text) partition by list (a); CREATE TABLE rhaas=# select * from pg_partitioned_table; partrelid | partstrat | partnatts | partattrs | partclass | partcollation | partexprs