Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Consistently use the term 'partitioned rel' in partprune comments

  2. Support partition pruning at execution time

  1. partition -> partitioned

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2018-05-17T01:52:30Z

    Hi.

Commit 499be013de6 used 'partition' where it really meant 'partitioned' in
a few places including in a variable name.  For example, what almost all
places call 'partitioned_rels', make_partition_pruneinfo called
'partition_rels'.

Attached a patch to make that uniform to avoid confusion.

Thanks,
Amit

  2. Re: partition -> partitioned

    David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-05-17T02:40:04Z

    On 17 May 2018 at 13:52, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Commit 499be013de6 used 'partition' where it really meant 'partitioned' in
> a few places including in a variable name.  For example, what almost all
> places call 'partitioned_rels', make_partition_pruneinfo called
> 'partition_rels'.
>
> Attached a patch to make that uniform to avoid confusion.

Looks good to me.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

  3. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2018-05-17T02:48:39Z

    On 2018/05/17 11:40, David Rowley wrote:
> On 17 May 2018 at 13:52, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Commit 499be013de6 used 'partition' where it really meant 'partitioned' in
>> a few places including in a variable name.  For example, what almost all
>> places call 'partitioned_rels', make_partition_pruneinfo called
>> 'partition_rels'.
>>
>> Attached a patch to make that uniform to avoid confusion.
> 
> Looks good to me.

Thanks for taking a look at it.

Regards,
Amit

  4. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2018-06-19T08:51:05Z

    On 2018/05/17 11:48, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/17 11:40, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 17 May 2018 at 13:52, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Commit 499be013de6 used 'partition' where it really meant 'partitioned' in
>>> a few places including in a variable name.  For example, what almost all
>>> places call 'partitioned_rels', make_partition_pruneinfo called
>>> 'partition_rels'.
>>>
>>> Attached a patch to make that uniform to avoid confusion.
>>
>> Looks good to me.
> 
> Thanks for taking a look at it.

Did this perhaps get forgotten?

Thanks,
Amit

  5. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2018-06-19T09:02:22Z

    On 2018/06/19 17:51, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/17 11:48, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/05/17 11:40, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2018 at 13:52, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>>> Commit 499be013de6 used 'partition' where it really meant 'partitioned' in
>>>> a few places including in a variable name.  For example, what almost all
>>>> places call 'partitioned_rels', make_partition_pruneinfo called
>>>> 'partition_rels'.
>>>>
>>>> Attached a patch to make that uniform to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look at it.
> 
> Did this perhaps get forgotten?

Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch.  Also,
made a minor update to a nearby comment.

Thanks,
Amit

  6. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2018-06-20T03:03:47Z

    On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:02:22PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch.  Also,
> made a minor update to a nearby comment.

That looks right to me as we speak about non-leaf partitions here.
Alvaro, as 499be013 is yours, would you fix this inconsistency or should
I?  I could understand why things are confusing on HEAD, "partitioned"
and "partition" have opposite meanings.
--
Michael

  7. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-20T03:59:00Z

    On 2018-Jun-20, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:02:22PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch.  Also,
> > made a minor update to a nearby comment.
> 
> That looks right to me as we speak about non-leaf partitions here.
> Alvaro, as 499be013 is yours, would you fix this inconsistency or should
> I?  I could understand why things are confusing on HEAD, "partitioned"
> and "partition" have opposite meanings.

Hmm, will look.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  8. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2018-06-20T15:45:26Z

    On 2018-Jun-19, Amit Langote wrote:

> Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch.  Also,
> made a minor update to a nearby comment.

Pushed, thanks.  I made a couple of comments one or two words shorter
while (IMO) not losing clarity.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  9. Re: partition -> partitioned

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2018-06-21T00:17:28Z

    On 2018/06/21 0:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-19, Amit Langote wrote:
> 
>> Noticed that the relevant code changed, so I rebased the patch.  Also,
>> made a minor update to a nearby comment.
> 
> Pushed, thanks.  I made a couple of comments one or two words shorter
> while (IMO) not losing clarity.

Thank you.

Regards,
Amit