On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp > wrote:
> On 2017/09/27 1:51, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen > > <jesper.peder...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be > >> merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest > >> entries doesn't account for hash partitions at the moment in their > method > >> signatures; Beena noted something similar in [2]. I know that you said > >> otherwise [3], but this is CommitFest 1, so there is time for a revert > >> later, and hash partitions are already useful in internal testing. > > > > Well, that's a fair point. I was assuming that committing things in > > that order would cause me to win the "least popular committer" award > > at least for that day, but maybe not. It's certainly not ideal to > > have to juggle that patch along and keep rebasing it over other > > changes when it's basically done, and just waiting on other > > improvements to land. Anybody else wish to express an opinion? > > FWIW, I tend to agree that it would be nice to get the hash partitioning > patch in, even with old constraint exclusion based partition-pruning not > working for hash partitions. That way, it might be more clear what we > need to do in the partition-pruning patches to account for hash partitions. > +1 regards, Amul
