Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition?
Date: 2021-06-24 00:14:24
Message-ID: 2557223.1624493664@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 10:38, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I strongly disagree. That's essentially betting the whole farm on
>> our always being able to optimize parent-level operations fully,
>> which I do not think we are anywhere close to.

> Did you have anything in particular in mind here?

I don't think it's very hard to make up WHERE conditions that a person can
see select only one partition, but PG won't be able to figure that out.

> But... maybe there are some cases where a user can be certain that all
> interesting records are contained in a single partition but
> partitioning pruning cannot prove it...So maybe what you say is right.
> The workaround there would be to add a qual that allows pruning to
> work.

[ shrug... ] It's about as easy to just name the partition you want.
When planning overhead is considered, maybe it's a lot easier.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2021-06-24 00:32:33 Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition?
Previous Message David Rowley 2021-06-24 00:07:04 Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition?