Обсуждение: [HACKERS] Update comment in ExecPartitionCheck
This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck(): if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext)) { char *val_desc; Relation orig_rel = rel; /* See the comment above. */ if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: "See the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
On 2017/07/04 17:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck(): > > if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext)) > { > char *val_desc; > Relation orig_rel = rel; > > /* See the comment above. */ > if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) > > should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the > code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just > below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: > "See the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that. Thanks for fixing that. I forgot to do the same in the patch that got committed as 15ce775faa428 [1], which moved that code block from ExecConstraints() to ExecPartitionCheck(). Thanks, Amit [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=15ce775faa428
On 2017/07/04 18:15, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/07/04 17:55, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck(): >> >> if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext)) >> { >> char *val_desc; >> Relation orig_rel = rel; >> >> /* See the comment above. */ >> if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) >> >> should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the >> code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just >> below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: >> "See the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that. > > Thanks for fixing that. I forgot to do the same in the patch that got > committed as 15ce775faa428 [1], which moved that code block from > ExecConstraints() to ExecPartitionCheck(). Thanks for the explanation! In relation to this, I found odd behavior in the error handling. Since that is another topic, I'll start a new thread. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck(): > > if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext)) > { > char *val_desc; > Relation orig_rel = rel; > > /* See the comment above. */ > if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) > > should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the > code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just > below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: "See > the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that. Hrm. I'm not sure I understand which comment in ExecConstraints() this is supposed to refer to. Maybe we need to think a bit harder about how to make this clear. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2017/08/26 2:28, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita > <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> This comment in an error handling in ExecPartitionCheck(): >> >> if (!ExecCheck(resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionCheckExpr, econtext)) >> { >> char *val_desc; >> Relation orig_rel = rel; >> >> /* See the comment above. */ >> if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) >> >> should be updated because we don't have any comment on that above in the >> code. Since we have a comment on that in ExecConstraints() defined just >> below that function, I think the comment should be something like this: "See >> the comment in ExecConstraints().". Attached is a patch for that. > > Hrm. I'm not sure I understand which comment in ExecConstraints() > this is supposed to refer to. Maybe we need to think a bit harder > about how to make this clear. The comment in ExecConstraints is this: /* * If the tuple has been routed, it's been converted to the * partition's rowtype, which might differ from the root * table's. We must convert it back to the root table's * rowtype so that val_desc shown error message matches the * input tuple. */ if (resultRelInfo->ri_PartitionRoot) How about replacing the comment "See the comment above." in ExecPartitionCheck with something like this: "If the tuple has been routed, convert it from the partition's rowtype to the root table's. See the comment in ExecConstraints().". I think that would make it easy to specify that comment in ExecConstrains. I'd like to propose to update the same comments in other places as well, just for consistency. PFA an updated version of the patch. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers