From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 12:58:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHJz_dzMY-XoZetATmzzFq22QSpn1E9MHrpde_vsKxBYg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jesper Pedersen
<jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ah, crap. Last minute changes are bad.
Thanks for fixing.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2019-04-09 13:03:46 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2019-04-09 12:52:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization |