Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

2018-05-09 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:28:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I pushed some fixes produced here. Attached is the remainder of the >> patch you submitted. I notice now that we haven't actually fixed >> Peter's

Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:28:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I pushed some fixes produced here. Attached is the remainder of the > patch you submitted. I notice now that we haven't actually fixed > Peter's source of complaint, though. AFAICS your patch just adds test > cases, and upthread

Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

2018-05-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:38:22PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Perhaps, I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it might > be better to have the word "partitioned" in the message. That's what Peter is pointing to upthread and what the v1 of upthread was doing. I would tend to

Re: [SPAM] Re: Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect

2018-05-01 Thread Amit Langote
Hi. On 2018/05/02 11:05, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 12:30:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> However, backing up a minute, I don't think "relation \"%s\" is not a >> btree index" is such a terrible message. These modules are intended >> to be intended by people who Know What