On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I don't see any comments from you or Tom about patch 0001, which was > simple refactoring and not much to complain about.
We both commented that getting rid of copy_partition_data could introduce memory leaks. > Perhaps there is some confusion about the numbering? I don't think so. > I see that Alvaro had taken your comments on memory contexts into > account in his later patch. Which later patch? It seems like any changes meant to mitigate the problems with removing copy_partition_data ought to be folded into the patch that removes copy_partition_data, rather than being in some other patch later in the series. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
