Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Yes, but on the flip side, you're having to add code in a lot of
>> places -- I think I counted 7 -- where you turn around and ignore
>> those AppendRelInfos.
>
> Perhaps you were looking at the previous version with "minimal" appinfos
> containing the child_is_partitioned field?

Yes, I think I was. I think this version looks a lot better.

/*
+ * Close the root partitioned rel if we opened it above, but keep the
+ * lock.
+ */
+ if (rel != mtstate->resultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc)
+ heap_close(rel, NoLock);

We didn't take a lock above, though, so drop everything in the comment
from "but" onward.

- add_paths_to_append_rel(root, rel, live_childrels);
+ add_paths_to_append_rel(root, rel, live_childrels, partitioned_rels);

I think it would make more sense to put the new logic into
add_paths_to_append_rel, instead of passing this down as an additional
parameter.

+ * do not appear anywhere else in the plan. Situation is exactly the

The situation is...

+ if (parent_rte->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
+ {
+ foreach(lc, root->pcinfo_list)
+ {
+ PartitionedChildRelInfo *pc = lfirst(lc);
+
+ if (pc->parent_relid == parentRTindex)
+ {
+ partitioned_rels = pc->child_rels;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ }

You seem to have a few copies of this logic. I think it would be
worth factoring it out into a separate function.

+ root->glob->nonleafResultRelations =
+ list_concat(root->glob->nonleafResultRelations,
+ list_copy(splan->partitioned_rels));

Please add a brief comment. One line is fine.

+ newrc->isParent = childrte->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE;

I'm not sure what project style is, but I personally find these kinds
of assignments easier to read with an extra set of parantheses:

newrc->isParent = (childrte->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE);

+ if (partitioned_rels == NIL)
+ return;
+
+ foreach(lc, partitioned_rels)

I think the if-test is pointless; the foreach loop is going to start
by comparing the initial value with NIL.

Why doesn't ExecSerializePlan() need to transfer a proper value for
nonleafResultRelations to workers? Seems like it should.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company