Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От amul sul
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Дата
Msg-id CAAJ_b96Rn+mg+16opC-v1N9K6i1uk88JT30zs9mO7OHmDE-z8g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:41:15 +0900
> Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:03:58 +0530
>> amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Updated patch attached.
>>
>> I looked into the latest patch (v13) and have some comments
>> althogh they might be trivial.
>
> One more comment:
>
> +       if (spec->remainder < 0)
> +           ereport(ERROR,
> +                   (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLE_DEFINITION),
> +                    errmsg("remainder for hash partition must be a non-negative integer")));
>
> The value of remainder is defined as Iconst in gram.y, so it never be negative.
> Hence, I think this check is not necessary or Assert is enough.
>
Make sense, fixed this as well in the v14 patch. Thanks again.

Regards,
Amul



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: amul sul
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Следующее
От: Ashutosh Bapat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()