From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting ERROR with FOR UPDATE/SHARE for partitioned table. |
Date: | 2020-06-08 16:39:32 |
Message-ID: | 20200608163932.GA30161@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jun-03, Amit Langote wrote:
> Are you saying that the planner should take into account the state of
> the cursor specified in WHERE CURRENT OF to determine which of the
> tables to scan for the UPDATE? Note that neither partition pruning
> nor constraint exclusion know that CurrentOfExpr can possibly allow to
> exclude children of the UPDATE target.
I think from a user POV this is pretty obvious. The user doesn't really
care that there are partitions that were pruned, because obviously
UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF cannot refer to a tuple in those partitions.
> > I am possibly shooting in dark, but this puzzles me. And it looks like
> > we can cause wrong rows to be updated in non-partition inheritance
> > where the ctids match?
>
> I don't think that hazard exists, because the table OID is matched
> before the TID.
It sounds like CURRENT OF should somehow inform pruning that the
partition OID is to be matched as well. I don't know offhand if this is
easily implementable, though.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-08 17:16:19 | Re: Bump default wal_level to logical |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-08 16:31:26 | Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL |