Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2016/12/27 19:07, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached should fix that.
>
> Here are the last two patches with additional information like other
> patches.  Forgot to do that yesterday.

0001 has the disadvantage that get_partition_for_tuple() acquires a
side effect.  That seems undesirable.  At the least, it needs to be
documented in the function's header comment.

It's unclear to me why we need to do 0002.  It doesn't seem like it
should be necessary, it doesn't seem like a good idea, and the commit
message you proposed is uninformative.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company