From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: inserts into partitioned table may cause crash |
Date: | 2018-03-14 08:43:59 |
Message-ID: | 0ac1d841-e189-be1a-06b9-93681387e7fe@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/03/14 17:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/03/14 17:25), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/03/14 14:54), Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Sorry that this may be nitpicking that I should've brought up before, but
>>> doesn't ExecPrepareTupleRouting do all the work that's needed for routing
>>> a tuple and hence isn't the name a bit misleading? Maybe,
>>> ExecPerformTupleRouting?
>>
>> Actually, I thought of that name as a candidate, too. But I used
>> ExecPrepareTupleRouting because I didn't think it would actually perform
>> all the work; because it wouldn't do the main work of routing, ie, route
>> an inserted tuple to the target partition, which is ExecInsert()'s job.
>> I agree that it would do all the work *needed for routing*, though.
>
> One thing to add: having said that, I don't have any strong opinion about
> that. How about leaving that for the committer?
Sure. I agree with your point that "routing" isn't finished in that
function if we also consider actual insertion of tuple into the selected
partition a part of it.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-03-14 08:45:18 | Incorrect comment for ExecProcessReturning |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-03-14 08:35:35 | Re: inserts into partitioned table may cause crash |