| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Arne Roland <A(dot)Roland(at)index(dot)de>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |
| Date: | 2022-01-17 16:29:20 |
| Message-ID: | 202201171629.lsy5orykpjqa@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Jan-17, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> wrote:
> > On 2022-Jan-17, Amit Langote wrote:
> > The other is suggested by you:
> >
> > > Another thing to consider is that we haven't seen many reports of the
> > > problem (UPDATEs of partitioned PK tables causing DELETEs in
> > > referencing tables), even though it can be possibly very surprising to
> > > those who do run into it.
> >
> > Do nothing in the old branches.
> I think option 2, not backpatching, is more desirable at this stage.
Preliminarly, I tend to agree.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-01-17 16:50:42 | Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2022-01-17 16:21:13 | Re: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize |