From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: move PartitionBoundInfo creation code |
Date: | 2018-11-08 13:30:59 |
Message-ID: | 20181108133059.vda62xyx2xygyh3m@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Nov-08, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/11/08 0:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 03:34:38PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>> I think we can design the interface of partition_bounds_create such that
> >>> it returns information needed to re-arrange OIDs to be in the canonical
> >>> partition bound order, so the actual re-ordering of OIDs can be done by
> >>> the caller itself. (It may not always be OIDs, could be something else
> >>> like a struct to represent fake partitions.)
> >
> > This is interesting. I don't think the current interface is so bad that
> > we can't make a few tweaks later; IOW let's focus on the current patch
> > for now, and we can improve later. You (and David, and maybe someone
> > else) already have half a dozen patches touching this code, and I bet
> > some of these will have to be rebased over this one.
>
> The patch on ATTACH/DETACH concurrently thread is perhaps touching close
> to here, but I'm not sure if any of it should be concerned about how we
> generate the PartitionBoundInfo which the patch here trying to make into
> its own function?
Yeah, definitely not.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2018-11-08 13:57:45 | Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-11-08 13:30:50 | NULL handling in exconfig deconstruction |