Re: Rearranging ALTER TABLE to avoid multi-operations bugs

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: Rearranging ALTER TABLE to avoid multi-operations bugs
Date: 2019-05-29 20:50:49
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa3FzZvWriJmqquvAbf8GxrC9YM9umBb18j5M69iuq9bg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:24 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Anybody have thoughts about a different way to approach it?

I mean, in an ideal world, I think we'd never call back out to
ProcessUtility() from within AlterTable(). That seems like a pretty
clear layering violation. I assume the reason we've never tried to do
better is a lack of round tuits and/or sufficient motivation.

In terms of what we'd do instead, I suppose we'd try to move as much
as possible inside the ALTER TABLE framework proper and have
everything call into that.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-05-29 21:03:01 Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
Previous Message Donald Dong 2019-05-29 20:43:56 Re: Different row estimations on base rels