| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better |
| Date: | 2021-05-17 06:32:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqEKNQji7UcudugaYRHUx8ca67Qxe_Kgfe9BLS6trAVO7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> After 86dc900, In " src/include/nodes/pathnodes.h ",
> I noticed that it uses the word " partitioned UPDATE " in the comment above struct RowIdentityVarInfo.
>
> But, it seems " inherited UPDATE " is used in the rest of places.
> Is it better to keep them consistent by using " inherited UPDATE " ?
Yeah, I would not be opposed to fixing that. Like this maybe (patch attached)?
- * In partitioned UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child partitions to share
+ * In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child tables to share
While at it, I also noticed that the comment refers to the
row_identity_vars, but it can be unclear which variable it is
referring to. So fixed that too.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| RowIdentityVarInfo-comment.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-05-17 06:59:53 | "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2021-05-17 06:17:28 | Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY |