On 2018/12/18 10:57, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:49:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Okay, this suggestion sounds fine to me. Thanks!
>
> And committed with all your suggestions included. Thanks for the
> discussion.
Thank you!
Regards,
Amit
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:49:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, this suggestion sounds fine to me. Thanks!
And committed with all your suggestions included. Thanks for the
discussion.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 06:35:03PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> As far as the information content of this comment is concerned, I think
> it'd be more useful to word this comment such that it is applicable to
> different functions than to word it such that it is applicable to
> different queries.
On 2018/12/17 18:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
>> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
>> follow the comment, but I think that
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
> follow the comment, but I think that would be misleading. I think the
> plural would
On 2018/12/17 17:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:41:01PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Okay, let's use "Functions" then, although I wonder if you shouldn't tweak
>> it later when you commit the pg_partition_root patch?
>
> There are already two calls to pg_partition_tree
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:41:01PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Okay, let's use "Functions" then, although I wonder if you shouldn't tweak
> it later when you commit the pg_partition_root patch?
There are already two calls to pg_partition_tree for each one of the two
relkinds tested.
--
Michael
On 2018/12/17 16:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:14:07PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> --- A table not part of a partition tree works is the only member listed.
>> +-- A table not part of a partition tree is the only member listed.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> -- Table that is
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:14:07PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> --- A table not part of a partition tree works is the only member listed.
> +-- A table not part of a partition tree is the only member listed.
>
> How about:
>
> -- Table that is not part of any partition tree is the only member
On 2018/12/17 15:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:40:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
>> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
>> tests is imprecise about the expected
Hi,
On 2018/12/17 15:40, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi Amit,
> (CC: -hackers)
>
> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
> tests is imprecise about the expected behavior of the functions.
>
> Do you
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:40:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
> tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
> tests is imprecise about the expected behavior of the functions.
>
> Do you think that
Hi Amit,
(CC: -hackers)
I was just going through some of the tests, when I noticed that the
tests of partition_info.sql have two typos and that the last set of
tests is imprecise about the expected behavior of the functions.
Do you think that something like the attached is an improvement?
13 matches
Mail list logo
