On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't see any comments from you or Tom about patch 0001, which was
> simple refactoring and not much to complain about.
We both commented that getting rid of copy_partition_data could
introduce memory leaks.
> Perhaps there is some confusion about the numbering?
I don't think so.
> I see that Alvaro had taken your comments on memory contexts into
> account in his later patch.
Which later patch? It seems like any changes meant to mitigate the
problems with removing copy_partition_data ought to be folded into the
patch that removes copy_partition_data, rather than being in some
other patch later in the series.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
