From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Arne Roland <A(dot)Roland(at)index(dot)de>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |
Date: | 2022-03-19 20:13:43 |
Message-ID: | 202203192013.7ztcjeesrwnd@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Mar-18, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> +#define AFTER_TRIGGER_OFFSET 0x07FFFFFF /* must be low-order
> bits */
> +#define AFTER_TRIGGER_DONE 0x80000000
> +#define AFTER_TRIGGER_IN_PROGRESS 0x40000000
>
> Is it better if the order of AFTER_TRIGGER_DONE
> and AFTER_TRIGGER_IN_PROGRESS is swapped (for the ordinal values to be
> sequential) ?
They *are* sequential -- See
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202201172215.2tse3vjjgi2b%40alvherre.pgsql
> +#define AFTER_TRIGGER_CP_UPDATE 0x08000000
>
> It would be better to add a comment for this constant, explaining what CP
> means (cross partition).
Sure.
> + if (!partRel->rd_rel->relispartition)
> + elog(ERROR, "cannot find ancestors of a non-partition result
> relation");
>
> It would be better to include the relation name in the error message.
I don't think it matters. We don't really expect to hit this.
> + /* Ignore the root ancestor, because ...?? */
>
> Please fill out the remainder of the comment.
I actually would like to know what's the rationale for this myself.
Amit?
> + if (!trig->tgisclone &&
> + RI_FKey_trigger_type(trig->tgfoid) == RI_TRIGGER_PK)
> + {
> + has_noncloned_fkey = true;
>
> The variable says fkey, but the constant is not RI_TRIGGER_FK. Maybe add a
> comment explaining why.
Well, the constant is about the trigger *function*, not about any
constraint. This code is testing "is this a noncloned trigger, and does
that trigger use an FK-related function?" If you have a favorite
comment to include, I'm all ears.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"It takes less than 2 seconds to get to 78% complete; that's a good sign.
A few seconds later it's at 90%, but it seems to have stuck there. Did
somebody make percentages logarithmic while I wasn't looking?"
http://smylers.hates-software.com/2005/09/08/1995c749.html
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v16-0001-Enforce-foreign-key-correctly-during-cross-parti.patch | text/x-diff | 64.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-03-19 20:35:05 | Re: Commitfest manager for 2022-03 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-19 18:51:28 | Re: Regression tests failures on Windows Server 2019 - on master at commit # d816f366b |