On 2017/03/06 16:49, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/03/06 15:41, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> This comment is not completely correct. Children can be temp tables,
>>> they just cannot be temp tables of other backends. It seems to me that
>>> you could still keep this code simple and remove has_child..
>>
>> I updated the comment. I recall having posted a patch for that once, but
>> perhaps went unnoticed.
>
> The existing comment only specifies "temp tables" and not "temp table
> of other backends". The new comment keeps that part same and adds
> partitioned table case. So, I don't see any reason to change the "temp
> tables" to "temp table of other backends" in this patch.
Hmm. A separate patch might be fine but why not fix the incorrect part
while we are updating the whole comment anyway.
Thanks,
Amit
