On 2018/05/17 14:15, David Rowley wrote: > On 10 May 2018 at 21:56, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 10 May 2018 at 17:42, Simon Riggs <si...@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. > > While this does not cause any undesired behaviour, I think it's quite > clear that it's unintended, so I've added this to the v11 open items > list. > > If there's consensus that this is not the case then we can remove it > from the list. I've just added it to ensure that a proper evaluation > has been done.
Yeah, we should try to fix what I too think may just have been an oversight during PG 11 development. Thanks, Amit
