| 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 09:18:26 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB571682962016CC48932872D6942D9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 " ?
>
> Yeah, I would not be opposed to fixing that. Like this maybe (patch attached)?
> - * In partitioned UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child partitions to share
> + * In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child tables to
> + share
Thanks for the change, it looks good to me.
Best regards,
houzj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-17 09:34:40 | Re: "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-05-17 09:13:19 | Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN() |