On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 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.
There must be a reason why that comment is written the way it's
written. I guess, "from other backends" part of "temp tables" story
has been explained just few lines above and the author/s didn't want
to repeat it again. There's no point in changing it while we are not
touching temp tables handling.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
