Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+cT2OQ4tm1okUVwRX+eeqyLDWF9OvNozEpj9koi7H1Ow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range  (Rafia Sabih <rafia.sabih@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rafia Sabih
<rafia.sabih@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Beena,
>
> I had a look at the patch from the angle of aesthetics and there are a
> few cosmetic changes I might suggest. Please have a look at the
> attached patch and if you agree with those changes you may merge it on
> your patch. The patch also fixes a couple of more spelling mistakes
> unrelated to this patch.
>

I think if you have found spelling mistakes unrelated to this patch,
then it is better to submit those as a separate patch in a new thread.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Do we need the gcc feature "__builtin_expect" topromote the branches prediction?
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table