From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |
Date: | 2018-04-19 19:40:17 |
Message-ID: | 20180419194017.xeqvcndqsslojqk2@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I too have wondered in the past what it would take to make
> > equalTupDescs() return true for parent and partitions. Maybe we can make
> > it work by looking a bit harder than I did then.
>
> How about simply relaxing the tdtypeid test from equalTupleDescs? I
> haven't looked deeply but I think just checking whether or not both are
> RECORDOID might be sufficient, for typecache purposes.
After looking at the code, I'm a bit nervous about doing this, because I
don't fully understand what is going on in typcache, and what is the
HeapTupleHeaderGetTypeId macro really doing. I'm afraid that if we
confuse a table's tupdesc with one of its partition's , something
entirely random might end up happening.
Maybe this is completely off-base, but if so I'd like to have to proof.
So I'm thinking of reverting that patch instead per your patch.
While composing this we got emails from Robert and Peter G suggesting
the same too, so consider it done.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-04-19 19:47:02 | Re: Corrupted btree index on HEAD because of covering indexes |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-19 19:21:40 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |