Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPmGK14CbvsNn=ze8Z3v4wD8fgjDpBu8ggzF+_7VMsq9vnrHyg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c
Re: Obsolete comment in partbounds.c |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 6:56 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Oct-18, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > While reviewing the partitionwise-join patch, I noticed $Subject,ie, > > this in create_list_bounds(): > > > > /* > > * Never put a null into the values array, flag instead for > > * the code further down below where we construct the actual > > * relcache struct. > > */ > > if (null_index != -1) > > elog(ERROR, "found null more than once"); > > null_index = i; > > > > "the code further down below where we construct the actual relcache > > struct" isn't in the same file anymore by refactoring by commit > > b52b7dc25. How about modifying it like the attached? > > Yeah, agreed. Instead of "the null comes from" I would use "the > partition that stores nulls". I think your wording is better than mine. Thank you for reviewing! > While reviewing your patch I noticed a few places where we use an odd > pattern in switches, which can be simplified as shown here. case PARTITION_STRATEGY_LIST: - num_indexes = bound->ndatums; + return bound->ndatums; break; Why not remove the break statement? Other than that the patch looks good to me. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: