Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2016-11-15 10:30:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/11/11 19:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached updated patches.

Here is the latest version of the patches with some fixes along with those
mentioned below (mostly in 0003):

- Fixed the logic to skip the attach partition validation scan such that
it won't skip scanning a list partition *that doesn't accept NULLs* if
the partition key column is not set NOT NULL (it similarly doesn't skip
scanning a range partition if either of the partition key columns is not
set NOT NULL, because a range partition key cannot contain NULLs at all)

- Added some more regression tests for ATTACH PARTITION command

- Some fixes to documentation and source code comments


Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Catalog-and-DDL-for-partitioned-tables-14.patch text/x-diff 115.3 KB
0002-psql-and-pg_dump-support-for-partitioned-tables-14.patch text/x-diff 23.9 KB
0003-Catalog-and-DDL-for-partitions-14.patch text/x-diff 208.2 KB
0004-psql-and-pg_dump-support-for-partitions-14.patch text/x-diff 22.1 KB
0005-Teach-a-few-places-to-use-partition-check-quals-14.patch text/x-diff 30.9 KB
0006-Introduce-a-PartitionTreeNode-data-structure-14.patch text/x-diff 8.0 KB
0007-Tuple-routing-for-partitioned-tables-14.patch text/x-diff 43.2 KB
0008-Update-DDL-Partitioning-chapter-to-reflect-new-devel-14.patch text/x-diff 24.7 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2016-11-15 11:25:13 Re: asynchronous execution
Previous Message Rushabh Lathia 2016-11-15 10:04:22 Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw