Re: tuple-routing and constraint violation error message, revisited

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: tuple-routing and constraint violation error message, revisited
Date: 2017-04-09 23:54:26
Message-ID: 20170409235426.GB2842536@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:13:03AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Last message regarding this was by Robert on the original partitioning thread:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZjGzSM5WwnyapFaw3GxnDLWh7pm8Xiz8_QWQnUQy%3DSCA%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Summary is: We decided in f1b4c771ea7 [1] that passing the original slot
> (one containing the tuple formatted per root partitioned table's tupdesc)
> to ExecConstraints(), but that breaks certain cases. Imagine what would
> happen if a BR insert trigger changed the tuple - the original slot would
> not contain those changes. So, it seems better to convert (if necessary)
> the tuple formatted per partition tupdesc after tuple-routing back to the
> root table's format and use the converted tuple to make val_desc shown in
> the message if an error occurs.
>
> Attached rebased version of the patch that I had originally proposed
> (summary above is the commit message). Robert thought it would be fine to
> show the row formatted per partition rowtype, but would look better if we
> could show the column names as well (remember that we're trying to account
> for possible differences in the ordering of columns between the root table
> and leaf partitions to which tuples are routed.)
>
> Added this to PostgreSQL 10 open items list.

[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution. Thanks.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2017-04-09 23:57:29 Re: dropping a partition may cause deadlock
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-04-09 23:50:57 Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table