From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jiaoshuntian(at)highgo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] Query with postgres fwd deletes more tuples than it should |
Date: | 2025-09-18 11:34:55 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK17A+ZYin1iBZ5rERWu8VHKbkpCHyBSzk1AW8TAfFS9q_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:11 PM Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 6:46 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 2:46 PM <jiaoshuntian(at)highgo(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I think a good way to fix would be to use `(tableoid, ctid)` together as the row
> > > identifier in row-by-row updates/deletes. This combination is unique
> > > across partitions and avoids the incorrect behavior, while still keeping
> > > LIMIT support.
> >
> > Agreed; actually I created such a fix as well a long time ago, but
> > unfortunately it has many issues...
>
> I'll try to help with implementation of the proposed idea.
Great!
> BTW, maybe we should move commitfest entry [1] to the next CF?
>
> [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/1819/
My plan is to re-add this to CF when I address Tom's comments [2], but
I don't yet have a clear solution for that. BUT: if you want to work
on it, feel free.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1590.1542393315%40sss.pgh.pa.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-09-18 11:37:00 | Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush() |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-09-18 11:02:56 | Re: [Patch] add new parameter to pg_replication_origin_session_setup |