Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2017-01-17 16:54:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZjGzSM5WwnyapFaw3GxnDLWh7pm8Xiz8_QWQnUQy=SCA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> The problem is that whereas the SlotValueDescription that we build to show
> in the error message should be based on the tuple that was passed to
> ExecInsert() or whatever NextCopyFrom() returned for CopyFrom() to
> process, it might fail to be the case if the tuple was needed to be
> converted after tuple routing. slot (the tuple in it and its tuple
> descriptor) and resultRelInfo that ExecConstraint() receives *do*
> correspond with each other, even after possible tuple conversion following
> tuple-routing, and hence constraint checking itself works fine (since
> commit 2ac3ef7a01 [1]). As said, it's the val_desc built to show in the
> error message being based on the converted-for-partition tuple that could
> be seen as a problem - is it acceptable if we showed in the error message
> whatever the converted-for-partition tuple looks like which might have
> columns ordered differently from the root table? If so, we could simply
> forget the whole thing, including reverting f1b4c771 [2].
>
> An example:
>
> create table p (a int, b char, c int) partition by list (a);
> create table p1 (b char, c int, a int); -- note the column order
> alter table p attach partition p1 for values in (1);
> alter table p add constraint check_b check (b = 'x');
>
> insert into p values (1, 'y', 1);
> ERROR: new row for relation "p1" violates check constraint "check_b"
> DETAIL: Failing row contains (y, 1, 1).
>
> Note that "(y, 1, 1)" results from using p1's descriptor on the converted
> tuple. As long that's clear and acceptable, I think we need not worry
> about this patch and revert the previously committed patch for this "problem".

Hmm. It would be fine, IMHO, if the detail message looked like the
one that BuildIndexValueDescription produces. Without the column
names, the clarity is somewhat lessened.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-01-17 16:59:36 Re: Hash support for grouping sets
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-17 16:49:44 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix cardinality estimates for parallel joins.