Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2019-02-03 00:18:47
Message-ID: CAKJS1f_+3k8AmtRCCUvFMh-a648KW-p22oszbH4EvQnNzd9K=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 09:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> After having written this code, I'm still torn about whether to go
> further with this design. On the one hand, this is such boilerplate
> code that it's kinda hard to imagine it having too many more bugs; on
> the other hand, as you can see, it's a non-trivial amount of code to
> add without a real clear reason, and I'm not sure we have one, even
> though in the abstract it seems like a better way to go.

I think we do need to ensure that the PartitionDesc matches between
worker and leader. Have a look at choose_next_subplan_for_worker() in
nodeAppend.c. Notice that a call is made to
ExecFindMatchingSubPlans().

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lætitia Avrot 2019-02-03 01:55:06 Re: [Patch] Log10 and hyperbolic functions for SQL:2016 compliance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-02 23:57:50 Re: Ryu floating point output patch