|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Declarative partitioning - another take|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2017/01/19 5:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> [ updated patches ]
>> I committed 0004 and also fixed the related regression test not to
>> rely on DROP .. CASCADE, which isn't always stable. The remainder of
>> this patch set needs a rebase, and perhaps you could also fold in
>> other pending partitioning fixes so I have everything to look at it in
>> one place.
> Just to be a little more clear, I don't mind multiple threads each
> with a patch or patch set so much, but multiple patch sets on the same
> thread gets hard for me to track. Sorry for the inconvenience.
OK, I agree that having multiple patch sets on the same thread is cumbersome.
So, here are all the patches I posted to date (and one new at the bottom)
for reported and unreported bugs, excluding the one involving
BulkInsertState for which you replied in a new thread.
I'll describe the attached patches in brief:
Since implicit partition constraints are not inherited, an internal
partition's constraint was not being enforced when targeted directly.
So, include such constraint when setting up leaf partition result
relations for tuple-routing.
In 2ac3ef7a01df859c62d0a02333b646d65eaec5ff, we changed things so that
it's possible for a different TupleTableSlot to be used for partitioned
tables at successively lower levels. If we do end up changing the slot
from the original, we must update ecxt_scantuple to point to the new one
for partition key of the tuple to be computed correctly.
In ExecInsert(), do not switch back to the root partitioned table
ResultRelInfo until after we finish ExecProcessReturning(), so that
RETURNING projection is done using the partition's descriptor. For
the projection to work correctly, we must initialize the same for
each leaf partition during ModifyTableState initialization.
Automatically updatable views failed to handle partitioned tables.
Once that's fixed, WITH CHECK OPTIONS wouldn't work correctly without
the WCO expressions having been suitably converted for each partition
(think applying map_partition_varattnos to Vars in the WCO expressions
just like with partition constraint expressions).
Because a given range bound in the PartitionBoundInfo.datums array
is sometimes a range lower bound and upper bound at other times, we
must be careful when assuming which, especially when interpreting
the result of partition_bound_bsearch which returns the index of the
greatest bound that is less than or equal to probe. Due to an error
in thinking about the same, the relevant code in
check_new_partition_bound() caused invalid partition (index = -1)
to be chosen as the partition being overlapped.
Currently, the tuple conversion is performed after a tuple is routed,
even if the attributes of a target leaf partition map one-to-one with
those of the root table, which is wasteful. Avoid that by making
convert_tuples_by_name() return a NULL map for such cases.
Code to map attribute numbers in map_partition_varattnos() duplicates
what convert_tuples_by_name_map() does. Avoid that as pointed out by
This is the new one. There were quite a few commits recently to fix the
breakage in regression tests due to not using ORDER BY in queries on
system catalogs and using DROP TABLE ... CASCADE. There were still some
instances of the latter in create_table.sql and alter_table.sql.
|Next Message||Noah Misch||2017-01-19 06:32:45||Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2017-01-19 05:08:10||Re: pg_hba_file_settings view patch|