Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options

From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options
Date: 2019-10-07 09:42:39
Message-ID: 9592617.eGCyyMMzCL@x200m
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

В письме от понедельник, 7 октября 2019 г. 14:57:14 MSK пользователь Michael
Paquier написал:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:47:46PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> > This message is follow up to the "Get rid of the StdRdOptions" patch
> > thread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
> >
> > I've split patch into even smaller parts and commitfest want each patch in
> > separate thread. So it is new thread.
>
> Splitting concepts into different threads may be fine, and usually
> recommended. Splitting a set of patches into multiple entries to ease
> review and your goal to get a patch integrated and posted all these
> into the same thread is usually recommended. Now posting a full set
> of patches across multiple threads, in way so as they have
> dependencies with each other, is what I would call a confusing
> situation. That's hard to follow.
I understand that. I've tried to add new patches to original thread, but
commitfest did not accept that for some reason. You can try to add patch from
this letter https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2620882.s52SJui4ql@x200m
just to see how it works.

Since discussion actually did not started yet, it can be moved anywhere you
suggest, but please tell how exactly it should be done, because I do not
understand what is the better way.

> > The idea of this patch is following: If you read the code, partitioned
> > tables do not have any options (you will not find RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED
> > in boolRelOpts, intRelOpts, realRelOpts, stringRelOpts and enumRelOpts in
> > reloption.c), but it uses StdRdOptions to store them (these no options).
> I am not even sure that we actually need that. What kind of reloption
> you would think would suit into this subset?

Actually I do not know. But the author of partitioned patch, added a stub for
partitioned tables to have some reloptions in future. But this stub is
designed to use StdRdOptions. Which is not correct, as I presume. So here I am
correcting the stub.

--
Software Developer: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~014a87e140ff02c0da
Body-oriented Therapist: https://vk.com/nataraj_rebalancing (Russian)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-10-07 11:21:03 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Rushabh Lathia 2019-10-07 08:52:36 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup