| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications |
| Date: | 2026-07-30 03:45:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uCAnP8EtTFHUUO6gVggR9fPBk6T0g_eeEqk3Keci5VERg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 9:50 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> I noticed multiple places where these patches want to discover the
> root partition table OID, but they are not interested in the ancestor
> tree.
>
> I've created another thread/patch [1] to introduce a
> `get_partition_root` C function. I think this could simplify some of
> your code by removing the requirement to declare and free the unwanted
> ancestor lists.
>
> Please take a look and give your +1 there if you think it would be useful.
>
> ======
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPtc73UpWSn4teMyMxQoHwGJjRwhWiu%3DhGJqAj5k2AOXEw%40mail.gmail.com
>
Nisha, Peter,
Do you think we should make get_partition_root's patch as 0001 in this
thread and rebase rest of patches atop it? That way duplicated code in
many places will be removed. Another idea is to make
get_partition_root's patch as last patch here, but I prefer it as
first patch. Thoughts?
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-07-30 03:46:53 | Re: Partition pruning can incorrectly exclude a RANGE default partition |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-07-30 03:43:19 | Re: question about is_valid parameter in set_attnotnull |