Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> * Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
>> On 04/07/2017 05:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> >> 1) commit the 0002 patch now before the feature freeze and follow up
>> >>    with the regression test patch when ready in a couple of days
>> >> 2) hold off on both patches until ready
>> >> 3) push both patches to the next commitfest/pg11
>> >>
>> >> Some argue this is an open issue against the new partitioning feature in
>> >> pg10 and therefore should be addressed now, and others do not. I can see
>> >> both sides of that argument.
>> >>
>> >> In any case, thoughts on what to do?
>> >
>> > Speaking only for myself, I'm OK with any of those options, provided
>> > that that "a couple" means what my dictionary says it means.
>>
>> Thanks. I'd prefer not to do #1 actually, and I think we can adhere to
>> the dictionary meaning of "a couple" (i.e. by EOD Sunday). Assuming we
>> are ready by Sunday I will push both together (#2) or else I will move
>> them both together to the next CF (#3).

Without further ado, the updated patch is attached.

I added some comment updates, making it clearer where partitioned
tables are used and modified the test-cases to be as close to
lock-step with regular table regression testing as possible.

Let me know if you find any further issues -- I made sure to review
pretty thoroughly, so I'd be surprised, but it happens.

Thanks,
-- 
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers