From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update |
Date: | 2023-02-21 09:34:11 |
Message-ID: | 20230221093411.uaiwhld6t2ksl7kw@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Feb-20, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Playing around with MERGE some more, I noticed that the command tag
> row count is wrong if it does a cross-partition update:
>
> CREATE TABLE target (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST (b);
> CREATE TABLE target_p1 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (1);
> CREATE TABLE target_p2 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (2);
> INSERT INTO target VALUES (1,1);
>
> MERGE INTO target t USING (VALUES (1)) v(a) ON t.a = v.a
> WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET b = 2;
>
> which returns "MERGE 2" when only 1 row was updated, because
> ExecUpdateAct() will update estate->es_processed for a cross-partition
> update (but not for a normal update), and then ExecMergeMatched() will
> update it again.
Hah.
> I think the best fix is to have ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag =
> false to ExecUpdateAct(), so that ExecMergeMatched() takes
> responsibility for updating estate->es_processed in all cases.
Sounds sensible.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Las mujeres son como hondas: mientras más resistencia tienen,
más lejos puedes llegar con ellas" (Jonas Nightingale, Leap of Faith)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-02-21 09:46:39 | Re: Seek for helper documents to implement WAL with an FDW |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-02-21 09:02:44 | Re: Some revises in adding sorting path |