Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis
Date: 2026-06-27 17:43:40
Message-ID: c255619e-3093-48a8-9da2-a685075b2b6f@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27.06.26 14:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 24.06.26 18:39, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 2:54 AM Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have checked the patch v9 0002 "Move FOR PORTION OF volatile check
>>> into planner".  Functionality-wise, this seems correct.
>>>
>>> Could you explain why you used EXPRKIND_TARGET?  Maybe there is a good
>>> reason, but otherwise it seems kind of arbitrary.
>>
>> This expression is used in the target list to set the application-time
>> column. We intersect the old value with the FOR PORTION OF bounds.
>>
>>> The new ereport call in planner.c has some funny parentheses: You have
>>> parentheses around errmsg, but not around errcode.  This is probably
>>> because of the way this was copy and pasted from its previous location.
>>
>> Here are new patches with the parens cleaned up.
>
> Ok, I have committed that v10 0002 patch.  I will look at the other one
> next.

Committed the 0001 patch as well. I added an errdetail that identifies
the name of the foreign table, which could be helpful when you're
dealing with a partition hierarchy.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-06-27 17:50:38 Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision
Previous Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-06-27 14:14:16 Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope