Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobAq+mA5hzm0a5OS38qQY5758DDDGqa3sBJN4hvir-H9w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless the indexing system actually can't reference the first element
>> of *pds, and -1 means the second element.  But then I think we need a
>> more verbose explanation here.
>
> First element in *pds list (and the array subsequently created from
> it) contains the root table's entry.  So, a -1 does mean the 2nd entry
> in that list/array.  A 0 in the indexes array always refers to a leaf
> partition and hence an index into the array for leaf partitions.

All right, so let's just say that explicitly.  Maybe something like
the attached.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres 11 release notes