On 2018/05/17 14:15, David Rowley wrote:
> On 10 May 2018 at 21:56, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 10 May 2018 at 17:42, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Patch is good.
>>>
>>> The cause of this oversight is the lack of comments to explain the
>>> original coding, so we need to correct that in this patch, please.
>>
>> Thanks for looking.
>>
>> Yeah, the comments do need work. In order to make it a bit easier to
>> document I changed the way that check_partition_constr is set. This is
>> now done with an if/else if/else clause for both COPY and INSERT.
>>
>> Hopefully, that's easier to understand and prevents further mistakes.
>>
>> Patch attached.
>
> While this does not cause any undesired behaviour, I think it's quite
> clear that it's unintended, so I've added this to the v11 open items
> list.
>
> If there's consensus that this is not the case then we can remove it
> from the list. I've just added it to ensure that a proper evaluation
> has been done.
Yeah, we should try to fix what I too think may just have been an
oversight during PG 11 development.
Thanks,
Amit
