| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix RETURNING side effects for FOR PORTION OF leftover rows |
| Date: | 2026-07-27 01:49:00 |
| Message-ID: | 98BE8A0B-F678-4EDE-8EEB-096C0FB0582B@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jul 26, 2026, at 03:30, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2026 at 3:16 AM Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> The fix looks good to me, and the point about cross-partition updates
>> is a good one.
>>
>> Attached is a v3 patch, in which I reworked the comments a bit, and
>> moved the logic of the new check to the place it's actually used. I
>> also changed the tests to use a NOTICE-raising function instead of a
>> sequence, since that makes it clearer which rows are/were being
>> processed by the RETURNING clause.
>
> This all seems good. Using NOTICE does seem a little nicer.
>
> The commit message has a small typo:
>
> . . . so that the auxiliary INSERT of a
> cross-partition UPDATE with a FOR PORTION OF clause still process
> <-- s/b processes
> RETURNING normally.
+1
Otherwise, v2 looks good to me.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-07-27 02:14:00 | Re: Fix missing FORMAT when deparsing JSON_ARRAY(query) |
| Previous Message | Jacob Brazeal | 2026-07-27 01:39:56 | timestamp vs. timestamptz comparisons inconsistently ordered under DST |