Further adjust comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse.

In editing 09b12d52db I made it wrong;
fix that and try to more clearly explain the situation.

Patch by me, reviewed by David Rowley and Amit Langote

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobAq+mA5hzm0a5OS38qQY5758DDDGqa3sBJN4hvir-H9w@mail.gmail.com
This commit is contained in:
Robert Haas 2018-05-18 16:09:14 -04:00
parent dbccdd375b
commit b949bbcb7e
1 changed files with 7 additions and 5 deletions

View File

@ -973,11 +973,13 @@ get_partition_dispatch_recurse(Relation rel, Relation parent,
* The 'indexes' array is used when searching for a partition matching a
* given tuple. The actual value we store here depends on whether the
* array element belongs to a leaf partition or a subpartitioned table.
* For leaf partitions we store the 0-based index into *leaf_part_oids,
* and for sub-partitioned tables we store a negative version of the
* 1-based index into the *pds list. When searching, if we see a negative
* value, the search must continue in the corresponding sub-partition;
* otherwise, we've identified the correct partition.
* For leaf partitions we store the index into *leaf_part_oids, and for
* sub-partitioned tables we store a negative version of the index into
* the *pds list. Both indexes are 0-based, but the first element of the
* *pds list is the root partition, so 0 always means the first leaf. When
* searching, if we see a negative value, the search must continue in the
* corresponding sub-partition; otherwise, we've identified the correct
* partition.
*/
pd->indexes = (int *) palloc(partdesc->nparts * sizeof(int));
for (i = 0; i < partdesc->nparts; i++)