| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |
| Date: | 2018-07-11 00:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20180711002943.mpmwjp544kyf4gwv@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jul-09, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> Can you please comment whether this addresses your concern?
I was thinking that it would be a matter of passing the tuple slot to
EvalPlanQual for it to fill, rather than requiring it to fill some other
slot obtained from who-knows-where, but I realize now that that's nigh
impossible. Thanks for the explanation and patience.
What bothers me about this whole business is how ExecBRDeleteTriggers
and ExecDelete are now completely different from their sibling routines,
but maybe there's no helping that.
Please move the output arguments at the end of argument lists; also, it
would be great if you add commentary about ExecDelete other undocumented
arguments (tupleDeleted in particular) while you're in the vicinity.
Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2018-07-11 00:34:10 | RE: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-11 00:26:59 | Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type |