From: | Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |
Date: | 2025-06-16 20:15:41 |
Message-ID: | 0b3907b4-83b9-4873-9feb-2b60b29cda33@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
1.
>function name checkPartition is not ideal, maybe we can change it to
>CheckPartitionForMerge or MergePartitionCheck.
I agree that this name is not ideal. But the "checkPartition" function
is used for both MERGE/SPLIT commands, so the word 'Merge' in the
prefix or suffix of the function name would not be correct ...
May be "checkPartitionForModification" or something like that?
>The attached patch refactors transformPartitionCmdForMerge and
>ATExecMergePartitions based on the idea of acquiring
>AccessExclusiveLock on the to be merged partitions during
>transformPartitionCmdForMerge
Thanks, applied.
2.
>we need to expand the virtual generated column here,
>otherwise, bms_is_member would be not correct.
>...
>attach minor diff fix this problem.
Added patch and a bit modified test.
--
With best regards,
Dmitry Koval
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v46-0001-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-MERGE-PARTITIONS-.-comma.patch | text/plain | 174.4 KB |
v46-0002-Implement-ALTER-TABLE-.-SPLIT-PARTITION-.-comman.patch | text/plain | 227.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Sargsyan | 2025-06-16 20:21:47 | Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |
Previous Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-06-16 20:00:59 | Re: Revisiting {CREATE INDEX, REINDEX} CONCURRENTLY improvements |