Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables

(2018/03/16 19:43), Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> <mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:

> @@ -106,6 +120,9 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
> int num_subplan_partition_offsets;
> TupleTableSlot *partition_tuple_slot;
> TupleTableSlot *root_tuple_slot;
> + List **partition_arbiter_indexes;
> + TupleTableSlot **partition_conflproj_slots;
> + TupleTableSlot **partition_existing_slots;
> } PartitionTupleRouting;

> I am curious why you decided to add these members to
> PartitionTupleRouting structure. Wouldn't ResultRelationInfo be a better
> place to track these or is there some rule that we follow?

I just started reviewing the patch, so maybe I'm missing something, but
I think it would be a good idea to have these in that structure, not in
ResultRelInfo, because these would be required only for partitions
chosen via tuple routing.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita