Re: Fix SPLIT PARTITION bound-overlap bug and other improvements

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix SPLIT PARTITION bound-overlap bug and other improvements
Date: 2026-05-17 23:14:30
Message-ID: C0F7F893-D33E-4698-938E-612D08305CF6@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On May 18, 2026, at 05:45, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Chao!
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 9:59 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> To make this patch easier to process, I split it into 4 commits:
>>
>> 0001 - Fixes the bound-overlap bug
>> 0002 - Fix the incorrect HINT message for the DEFAULT case
>> 0003 - Fix the incorrect description about combined bound in the SGML doc
>> 0004 - Reject only-create-default-partition usage
>
> Thank you for your work. I've revised the patchset.
> 0002 - I've also fixed gramma of hints in other branches
> 0004 - In the check_split_partition_not_same_bound(), calling
> partition_bounds_create() and partition_bounds_equal() looks a bit
> heavyweight. It doesn't matter much performance-wise, but it feels
> like start processing from scratch while we're on quite late stage
> already. I've replaced that with more lightweight check. Also I
> removed dealing with memory context. This code implies small
> non-repetitive memory allocations which only lives during DDL
> operation, no need to wrap them with memory context as we don't do so
> in other places.
>
> Any objections if I commit this?
>
> ------
> Regards,
> Alexander Korotkov
> Supabase

Hi Alexander,

Thanks for the revisions. I think you may have missed the attachments, so I cannot review the changes.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2026-05-17 23:29:30 Re: (SQL/PGQ) cache lookup failed for label
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-05-17 22:43:34 Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two