Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f9X4g+SgEyZw+tL2ESen9hU=qansFnaPTBwMeeb1zH-ZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?  (Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>)
Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10 May 2018 at 17:42, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Patch is good.
>
> The cause of this oversight is the lack of comments to explain the
> original coding, so we need to correct that in this patch, please.

Thanks for looking.

Yeah, the comments do need work. In order to make it a bit easier to
document I changed the way that check_partition_constr is set. This is
now done with an if/else if/else clause for both COPY and INSERT.

Hopefully, that's easier to understand and prevents further mistakes.

Patch attached.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marina Polyakova
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Next
From: Teodor Sigaev
Date:
Subject: Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor