From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys |
Date: | 2019-12-24 01:59:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHoNKn3HBb0yZ9sCZu=GL_KxrXAFiYygLTgS95DBOcZTw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 6:33 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > One thing I see is that you chose to relocate RelationGetPartitionDesc's
> > declaration to partdesc.h, whereupon RelationBuildPartitionDesc doesn't
> > have to be exported at all anymore. Perhaps that's a better factorization
> > than what I did. It supposes that any caller of RelationGetPartitionDesc
> > is going to need partdesc.h, but that seems reasonable. We could likewise
> > move RelationGetPartitionKey to partcache.h.
>
> I concluded that that is indeed a better solution; it does allow removing
> some rel.h inclusions (though possibly those were just duplicative?), and
> it also means that relcache.c itself doesn't need any partitioning
> inclusions at all.
>
> Here's a cleaned-up patch that does it like that and also fixes the
> memory leakage issue.
Thanks for the updated patch. I didn't find anything to complain about.
> I haven't removed equalPartitionDescs here; that seems like material
> for a separate patch (to make it easier to put it back if we need it).
Seems like a good idea.
Btw, does the memory leakage fix in this patch address any of the
pending concerns that were discussed on the "hyrax vs.
RelationBuildPartitionDesc" thread earlier this year[1]?
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yugo Nagata | 2019-12-24 02:01:48 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2019-12-24 01:24:28 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |