Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update
Date: 2023-02-21 09:34:11
Message-ID: 20230221093411.uaiwhld6t2ksl7kw@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-Feb-20, Dean Rasheed wrote:

> Playing around with MERGE some more, I noticed that the command tag
> row count is wrong if it does a cross-partition update:
>
> CREATE TABLE target (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST (b);
> CREATE TABLE target_p1 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (1);
> CREATE TABLE target_p2 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (2);
> INSERT INTO target VALUES (1,1);
>
> MERGE INTO target t USING (VALUES (1)) v(a) ON t.a = v.a
> WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET b = 2;
>
> which returns "MERGE 2" when only 1 row was updated, because
> ExecUpdateAct() will update estate->es_processed for a cross-partition
> update (but not for a normal update), and then ExecMergeMatched() will
> update it again.

Hah.

> I think the best fix is to have ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag =
> false to ExecUpdateAct(), so that ExecMergeMatched() takes
> responsibility for updating estate->es_processed in all cases.

Sounds sensible.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Las mujeres son como hondas: mientras más resistencia tienen,
más lejos puedes llegar con ellas" (Jonas Nightingale, Leap of Faith)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-02-21 09:46:39 Re: Seek for helper documents to implement WAL with an FDW
Previous Message Richard Guo 2023-02-21 09:02:44 Re: Some revises in adding sorting path