Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better
Date: 2021-05-17 06:32:51
Message-ID: CA+HiwqEKNQji7UcudugaYRHUx8ca67Qxe_Kgfe9BLS6trAVO7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> After 86dc900, In " src/include/nodes/pathnodes.h ",
> I noticed that it uses the word " partitioned UPDATE " in the comment above struct RowIdentityVarInfo.
>
> But, it seems " inherited UPDATE " is used in the rest of places.
> Is it better to keep them consistent by using " inherited UPDATE " ?

Yeah, I would not be opposed to fixing that. Like this maybe (patch attached)?

- * In partitioned UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child partitions to share
+ * In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child tables to share

While at it, I also noticed that the comment refers to the
row_identity_vars, but it can be unclear which variable it is
referring to. So fixed that too.

--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
RowIdentityVarInfo-comment.patch application/octet-stream 1.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2021-05-17 06:59:53 "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE
Previous Message Amul Sul 2021-05-17 06:17:28 Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY