| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE |
| Date: | 2019-04-09 12:43:57 |
| Message-ID: | 826e4d52-234a-4d35-73b2-7c6b0a92220e@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit,
On 4/8/19 11:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> As of this commit, hashing functions hashtext() and hashtextextended()
> require a valid collation to be passed in. ISTM,
> satisfies_hash_partition() that's called by hash partition constraint
> checking should have been changed to use FunctionCall2Coll() interface to
> account for the requirements of the above commit. I see that it did that
> for compute_partition_hash_value(), which is used by hash partition tuple
> routing. That also seems to be covered by regression tests, but there are
> no tests that cover satisfies_hash_partition().
>
> Attached patch is an attempt to fix this. I've also added Amul Sul who
> can maybe comment on the satisfies_hash_partition() changes.
>
Yeah, that works here - apart from an issue with the test case; fixed in
the attached.
Best regards,
Jesper
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| satisfies_hash_partition-collate-2.patch | text/x-patch | 4.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2019-04-09 12:52:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-04-09 12:32:20 | Re: Status of the table access method work |