Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ikVsc-00029L-Cu for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:20:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ikVsb-0003y0-6U for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:20:53 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ikVsa-0003x9-QK for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:20:52 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ikVsY-0001Ke-Jb for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 16:20:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBQGKmlT001162; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:20:49 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys In-reply-to: References: <5361.1576602769@sss.pgh.pa.us> <28160.1576676326@sss.pgh.pa.us> <26766.1576947735@sss.pgh.pa.us> <24653.1576962784@sss.pgh.pa.us> <25383.1577112556@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20151.1577127467@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9214.1577136835@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15619.1577251861@sss.pgh.pa.us> <23867.1577298091@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote message dated "Thu, 26 Dec 2019 14:47:21 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1160.1577377248.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:20:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1161.1577377248@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Amit Langote writes: > Thank you. I noticed that there are comments suggesting that certain > RelationData members are to be accessed using their RelationGet* > functions, but partitioning members do not have such comments. How > about the attached? Good idea, done. regards, tom lane