| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Arne Roland <A(dot)Roland(at)index(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |
| Date: | 2021-04-02 13:09:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFQVfWmWYGiQySssSRinvWCOMzzsvo80bgy84CCcM+51w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Actually, I found a big hole in my assumptions around deferrable
> > foreign constraints, invalidating the approach I took in 0002 to use a
> > query-lifetime tuplestore to record root parent tuples. I'm trying to
> > find a way to make the tuplestore transaction-lifetime so that the
> > patch still works.
> >
> > In the meantime, I'm attaching an updated set with 0001 changed per
> > your comments.
>
> 0001 patch conflicts with 71f4c8c6f74. Could you please rebase the patchset?
Thanks for the heads up.
I still don't have a working patch to address the above mentioned
shortcoming of the previous approach, but here is a rebased version in
the meantime.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v7-0001-Create-foreign-key-triggers-in-partitioned-tables.patch | application/octet-stream | 37.9 KB |
| v7-0002-Enforce-foreign-key-correctly-during-cross-partit.patch | application/octet-stream | 45.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-04-02 13:30:16 | Re: policies with security definer option for allowing inline optimization |
| Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2021-04-02 13:09:04 | Re: policies with security definer option for allowing inline optimization |