From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
Date: | 2018-07-03 06:29:36 |
Message-ID: | 5db5fe6e-4a73-6a24-09e4-060b9f132ea9@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/07/03 15:16, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 18:11, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:00:46PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I think it should be backpatched to v11 and v10. Your original commit
>>> went there too. I don't see any reason to do any different here than
>>> what you did with the original commit.
>>
>> expand_partitioned_rtentry is new as of v11. Or you mean to tweak
>> expand_inherited_rtentry() perhaps? I am not sure that it is worth it
>> as the code has already diverged between 10 and 11.
>
> Oh right. I'd forgotten that changed in v11. I think the v10 code is
> fine as is then.
Sorry for jumping in late here. I have a comment on the patch.
+ /* if there are no partitions then treat this as non-inheritance case. */
+ if (partdesc->nparts == 0)
+ {
+ parentrte->inh = false;
+ return;
+ }
+
Why is this not near the beginning of expand_partitioned_rtentry()?
Also, ISTM, this code would be unreachable because
expand_inherited_rtentry would not call here if the above if statement is
true, no?
I see the following two blocks in expand_inherited_rtentry before one gets
to the call to expand_partitioned_rtentry:
if (!has_subclass(parentOID))
{
/* Clear flag before returning */
rte->inh = false;
return;
}
and
if (list_length(inhOIDs) < 2)
{
/* Clear flag before returning */
rte->inh = false;
return;
}
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-03 06:44:52 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-03 06:16:40 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-03 06:44:52 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
Previous Message | Arseny Sher | 2018-07-03 06:16:42 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |