| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-11-02 08:05:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYUfTjgWFjDWDO34OprAEkVNou4QOAvnKqc83MA+D9i5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Although partition constraints become more simple, there isn't any performance
> gain with 0005 patch. Also I am little skeptic about logic in 0005 where we
> copied extended hash function info from the partition key, what if parent is
> changed while we are using it? Do we need to keep lock on parent until commit in
> satisfies_hash_partition?
I don't think it should be possible for the parent to be changed. I
mean, the partition key is altogether immutable -- it can't be changed
after creation time. The partition bounds can be changed for
individual partitions but that would require a lock on the partition.
Can you give an example of the kind of scenario about which you are concerned?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-11-02 08:06:50 | Re: Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11) |
| Previous Message | Aleksandr Parfenov | 2017-11-02 07:42:50 | Re: [PATCH] A hook for session start |