On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/09/05 15:30, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> Those changes are already part of my updated 0001 patch. Aren't they?
>> May be you should just review those and see if those are suitable for
>> you?
>
> Yeah, I think it's going to be the same patch, functionality-wise.
>
> And sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the case after applying
> your patch on HEAD.
>
Ok. Can you please answer my previous questions?
AFAIU, the list contained RTIs of the relations, which didnt' have
corresponding AppendRelInfos to lock those relations. Now that we
create AppendRelInfos even for partitioned partitions with my 0001
patch, I don't think
we need the list to take care of the locks. Is there any other reason
why we maintain that list (apart from the trigger case I have raised
and Fujita-san says that the list is not required in that case as
well.)?
Having asked that, I think my patch shouldn't deal with removing
partitioned_rels lists and related structures and code. It should be
done as a separate patch.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company