On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/09/12 19:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> I think the code here expects the original parent_rte and not the one >> we set around line 1169. >> >> This isn't a bug right now, since both the parent_rte s have same >> content. But I am not sure if that will remain to be so. Here's patch >> to fix the thinko. > > Instead of the new bool is_parent_partitioned, why not move the code to > set partitioned_rels to the block where you're now setting > is_parent_partitioned. > > Also, since we know this isn't a bug at the moment but will turn into one > once we have step-wise expansion, why not include this fix in that patch > itself?
It won't turn into a bug with step-wise expansion since every parent_rte will have RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE for a partitioned top parent, which is used to extract the partitioned_rels. But I guess, it's better to fix the thinko in step-wise expansion since parent_rte itself changes. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
