| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mention ordered datums in PartitionBoundInfoData comment |
| Date: | 2017-12-05 05:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_auNOdxXRKN+a9HLGC8k__zS-iSG9AZAWNH4tuKVTb0AA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
> Julien Rouhaund, who has proposed a patch for partition-wise ordering
> mentioned to me offlist that the comments for PartitionBoundInfoData
> do not mention the fact that the datums in datums array are ordered. I
> think that's important to mention there. So here's patch to do that.
>
Thanks for the patch! I agree this should mentioned in the comment.
small typo:
+ * PartitionBoundInfoData structures for two partitioned table with
exactly same
should be "tables".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-12-05 05:58:23 | BUGFIX: standby disconnect can corrupt serialized reorder buffers |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-12-05 05:39:56 | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |