| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Imai Yoshikazu <yoshikazu_i443(at)live(dot)jp>, "jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com" <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Date: | 2019-03-30 15:36:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkRYXHFReBjNbr1_wrNEJfS-UjNXwdeYnGx2EVG_QEOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Before that, though, I remain concerned that the PartitionPruneInfo
> data structure the planner is transmitting to the executor is unsafe
> against concurrent ATTACH PARTITION operations. The comment for
> PartitionedRelPruneInfo says in so many words that it's relying on
> indexes in the table's PartitionDesc; how is that not broken by
> 898e5e329?
The only problem with PartitionPruneInfo structures of which I am
aware is that they rely on PartitionDesc offsets not changing. But I
added code in that commit in ExecCreatePartitionPruneState to handle
that exact problem. See also paragraph 5 of the commit message, which
begins with "Although in general..."
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-30 15:44:36 | Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary. |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-03-30 15:25:12 | Re: jsonpath |