Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2017/01/05 5:50, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> Patches 0001 to 0006 unchanged.
>>
>> Committed 0001 earlier, as mentioned in a separate email. Committed
>> 0002 and part of 0003.
>
> Thanks! I realized however that the approach I used in 0002 of passing
> the original slot to ExecConstraints() fails in certain situations. For
> example, if a BR trigger changes the tuple, the original slot would not
> receive those changes, so it will be wrong to use such a tuple anymore.
> In attached 0001, I switched back to the approach of converting the
> partition-tupdesc-based tuple back to the root partitioned table's format.
> The converted tuple contains the changes by BR triggers, if any. Sorry
> about some unnecessary work.

Hmm. Even with this patch, I wonder if this is really correct. I
mean, isn't the root of the problem here that ExecConstraints() is
expecting that resultRelInfo matches slot, and it doesn't? And why
isn't that also a problem for the things that get passed resultRelInfo
and slot after tuple routing and before ExecConstraints? In
particular, in copy.c, ExecBRInsertTriggers.

Committed 0002.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company