On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/06/15 17:53, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> Both of the above comments are not related to the bug that is being fixed, but
>>>> they apply to the same code where the bug exists. So instead of fixing it
>>>> twice, may be we should expand the scope of this work to cover other
>>>> refactoring needed in this area. That might save us some rebasing and commits.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the patch posted on that thread should be brought over
>>> and discussed here?
>>
>> Not the whole patch, but that one particular comment, which applies to
>> the existing code in ATExecAttachPartition(). If we fix the existing
>> code in ATExecAttachPartition(), the refactoring patch there will
>> inherit it when rebased.
>
> Yes, I too meant only the refactoring patch, which I see as patch 0001 in
> the series of patches that Jeevan posted with the following message:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NeR%3D%2BTMRTw6oq_5WrJF%2B_xG91k_nGUub29Lnv5-qmQHw%40mail.gmail.com
I think we don't need to move that patch over to here, unless you see
that some of that refactoring is useful here. I think, we should
continue this thread and patch independent of what happens there. If
and when this patch gets committed, that patch will need to be
refactored.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company