Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table

On 2017/07/06 18:30, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 July 2017 at 10:43, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> 0001 is your patch to tidy up check_new_partition_bound()  (must be
>> applied before 0002)
>>
> 
> I pushed this first patch, simplifying check_new_partition_bound() for
> range partitions, since it seemed like a good simplification, but note
> that I don't think that was actually the cause of the latent bug you
> saw upthread.

I like how simple check_new_partition_bound() has now become.

> I think the real issue was in partition_rbound_cmp() -- normally, if
> the upper bound of one partition coincides with the lower bound of
> another, that function would report the upper bound as the smaller
> one, but that logic breaks if any of the bound values are infinite,
> since then it will exit early, returning 0, without ever comparing the
> "lower" flags on the bounds.
> 
> I'm tempted to push a fix for that independently, since it's a bug
> waiting to happen, even though it's not possible to hit it currently.

Oops, you're right.  Thanks for the fix.

Regards,
Amit