Thanks for the review.
(..also looking at the comments you sent earlier today.)
On 2017/11/07 11:14, David Rowley wrote:
> On 7 November 2017 at 01:52, David Rowley
>> Thanks. I'll look over it all again starting my Tuesday morning. (UTC+13)
On 2017/11/06 21:52, David Rowley wrote:
> On 6 November 2017 at 23:01, Amit Langote
>> OK, I have gotten rid of the min/max partition index interface and instead
>> adopted the bms_add_range() approach by including your patch to add the
>> same in the
On 2017/11/06 13:15, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote
>> Attached updated version of the patches
> match_clauses_to_partkey() needs to allow for the way quals on Bool
> columns are represented.
> create table pt (a bool
On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote
>> 1. This comment seem wrong.
>> * Since the clauses in
On 2017/11/06 12:53, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 November 2017 at 17:32, David Rowley
>> 2. This code is way more complex than it needs to be.
>> if (num_parts > 0)
>> int j;
>> all_indexes = (int *) palloc(num_parts * sizeof(int));
>> j = 0;