On 2017/05/16 21:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/05/16 4:29, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's exactly why I think we should make the change Amit is
>>> proposing here. If we don't, then we won't be able to accept NULL
>>> values even after we have the default partitioning stuff.
>>
>> Attached is a patch for consideration. There are 2 actually, but maybe
>> they should be committed together if we decide do go with this.
>>
>
> After your changes in get_qual_for_range(), below comment in that
> function needs an update and I feel it is better to update the
> function header as well.
>
> /*
> * A range-partitioned table does not allow partition keys to be null. For
> * simple columns, their NOT NULL constraint suffices for the enforcement
> * of non-nullability. But for the expression keys, which are still
> * nullable, we must emit a IS NOT NULL expression. Collect them in
> * result first.
> */
Thanks for the review. I updated the comments.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
