On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:38 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:38:55PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > I've fixed 0001 again to re-order the code so that allocations happen the > > correct context and now tests pass with the rebased patches. > > I have been looking at 0001, and it seems to me that you make even more > messy the current situation. Coming to my point: do we have actually > any need to set rel->rd_pdcxt and rel->rd_partdesc at all if a relation > has no partitions? It seems to me that we had better set rd_pdcxt and > rd_partdesc to NULL in this case.
I think that's unrelated to this patch, as Amit also says, but I have to say that the last few hunks of the rebased version of this patch do not make a lot of sense to me. This patch is supposed to be reducing list construction, and the original version did that, but the rebased version adds a partition_bounds_copy() operation, whereas my version did not add any expensive operations - it only removed some cost. I don't see why anything I changed should necessitate such a change, nor does it seem like a good idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company