RE: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better

From: "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: RE: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better
Date: 2021-05-17 06:07:39
Message-ID: OS0PR01MB57162248BCD35D622DCB6D0D942D9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

After 86dc900, In " src/include/nodes/pathnodes.h ",
I noticed that it uses the word " partitioned UPDATE " in the comment above struct RowIdentityVarInfo.

But, it seems " inherited UPDATE " is used in the rest of places.
Is it better to keep them consistent by using " inherited UPDATE " ?

Best regards,
houzj

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2021-05-17 06:17:28 Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2021-05-17 05:50:12 Re: pg_dumpall misses --no-toast-compression