Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql
Date
Msg-id 11037.1491492598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> I'm going to push the attached in a few hours unless there is any
> additional discussion. As stated above we'll do the regression changes
> in a separate patch once that is sorted. I used Tom's approach and
> comment wording for 0001a.

Looks generally sane, but I noticed a grammatical nitpick:

-     * Only attributes within regular relation or partition relations have
+     * Only attributes within regular relations or partition relations have
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No-op case in ExecEvalConvertRowtype
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: Uninitialized variable introduced in3217327053638085d24dd4d276e7c1f7ac2c4c6b