From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting ERROR: could not open file "base/13164/t3_16388" with partition table with ON COMMIT |
Date: | 2018-11-01 03:39:16 |
Message-ID: | 06f61571-56fb-f4a5-6bc5-dc11c1f05a5a@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/09/14 10:53, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/09/13 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>> On 2018/09/13 1:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> That seems excessively restrictive. Anything that has storage (e.g.
>>>> matviews) ought to be truncatable, no?
>>
>>> Not by heap_truncate it seems. The header comment of heap_truncate says
>>> that it concerns itself only with ON COMMIT truncation of temporary tables:
>>
>> Ah. Well, in that case I'm OK with just a simple test for
>> RELKIND_RELATION, but I definitely feel that it should be inside
>> heap_truncate. Callers don't need to know about the limited scope
>> of what that does.
>
> I guess you meant inside heap_truncate_one_rel. I updated the patch that
> way, but I wonder if we shouldn't also allow other relkinds that have
> storage which RelationTruncate et al can technically deal with.
Rajkumar pointed out off-list that the patch still remains to be applied.
Considering that there is a planned point release on Nov 8, maybe we
should do something about this?
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-11-01 03:58:29 | move PartitionBoundInfo creation code |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-11-01 03:35:22 | Re: heap_sync seems rather oblivious to partitioned tables (wal_level=minimal) |