Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmobNbjV+zUmYCHhmWT_X=-tF9prL6KgVAUBh5zudT0t0+Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order  (Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I
> didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they rearranged the
> comments. Those changes are not part of this patch and you haven't
> comments about those changes as well. If you have intentionally
> excluded those changes, it's fine. In case, you haven't reviewed them,
> please see if they are good to be incorporated.

I took a quick look at your version but I think I like Amit's fine the
way it is, so committed that and back-patched it to v10.

I find 0002 pretty ugly as things stand.  We get a bunch of tuple maps
that we don't really need, only to turn around and free them.  We get
a bunch of tuple slots that we don't need, only to turn around and
drop them.  We don't really need the PartitionDispatch objects either,
except for the OIDs they contain.  There's a lot of extra stuff being
computed here that is really irrelevant for this purpose.  I think we
should try to clean that up somehow.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM salt length