Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:38 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:38:55PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I've fixed 0001 again to re-order the code so that allocations happen the
> > correct context and now tests pass with the rebased patches.
>
> I have been looking at 0001, and it seems to me that you make even more
> messy the current situation. Coming to my point: do we have actually
> any need to set rel->rd_pdcxt and rel->rd_partdesc at all if a relation
> has no partitions? It seems to me that we had better set rd_pdcxt and
> rd_partdesc to NULL in this case.

I think that's unrelated to this patch, as Amit also says, but I have
to say that the last few hunks of the rebased version of this patch do
not make a lot of sense to me. This patch is supposed to be reducing
list construction, and the original version did that, but the rebased
version adds a partition_bounds_copy() operation, whereas my version
did not add any expensive operations - it only removed some cost. I
don't see why anything I changed should necessitate such a change, nor
does it seem like a good idea.

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