On 2017/10/13 4:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached a patch to modify the INFO messages in check_default_allows_bound.
>
> Committed. However, I didn't see a reason to adopt the comment change
> you proposed,
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Attached a patch to modify the INFO messages in check_default_allows_bound.
Committed. However, I didn't see a reason to adopt the comment change
you proposed, so I left that part out.
--
Robert Haas
On 2017/10/06 2:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I guess we don't need to squash, as they could be seen as implementing
>> different features. Reordering the patches helps though. So, apply them
>> in this order:
>>
>> 1. My patch to teach
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/09/16 1:57, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I believe the intended advantage of the current system is that if you
>>> specify
On 2017/09/16 1:57, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I believe the intended advantage of the current system is that if you
>> specify multiple operations in a single ALTER TABLE command, you only
>> do one scan rather than having
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should call check_default_allows_bound() from
>> ATExecAttachPartition(), too, instead of validating updated
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I wonder if we should call check_default_allows_bound() from
> ATExecAttachPartition(), too, instead of validating updated default
> partition constraint using ValidatePartitionConstraints()? That is, call
>
On 2017/09/15 0:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
>> Thanks Amit for reviewing.
>>> Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip
>>> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Thanks Amit for reviewing.
>> Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip
>> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to
>>
Thanks Amit for reviewing.
Patch looks fine to me. By the way, why don't we just say "Can we skip
> scanning part_rel?" in the comment before the newly added call to
> PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint()? We don't need to repeat the
> explanation of what it does at the every place we call
Hi Jeevan,
On 2017/09/12 18:22, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> Commit 6f6b99d1335be8ea1b74581fc489a97b109dd08a introduced default
> partitioning support. This commit added a new function
> check_default_allows_bound(),
> which checks if there exists a row in the default partition that would
> belong to
>
11 matches
Mail list logo