| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2018-03-16 10:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdNMqDsc9GFSvpAiWB5tm6sTTkAaozbwkRB2e2UqOQ8zsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
@@ -106,6 +120,9 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
int num_subplan_partition_offsets;
TupleTableSlot *partition_tuple_slot;
TupleTableSlot *root_tuple_slot;
+ List **partition_arbiter_indexes;
+ TupleTableSlot **partition_conflproj_slots;
+ TupleTableSlot **partition_existing_slots;
} PartitionTupleRouting;
I am curious why you decided to add these members to PartitionTupleRouting
structure. Wouldn't ResultRelationInfo be a better place to track these or
is there some rule that we follow?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-16 11:01:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2018-03-16 10:38:31 | Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs |