Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Date: 2017-08-30 03:03:34
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoafr=hUrM=cbx-k=BDHOF2OfXaw95HQSNAK4mHBwmSjtw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> I keep having the feeling that this is a big patch with a small patch
>> struggling to get out. Is it really necessary to change
>> RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo so much or could you just do a really
>> minimal surgery to remove the code that sets the stuff we don't need?
>> Like this:
>
> Sure, done in the attached updated patch.

On first glance, that looks pretty good. I'll have a deeper look
tomorrow. It strikes me that if PartitionTupleRoutingInfo is an
executor structure, we should probably (as a separate patch) relocate
FormPartitionKeyDatum and get_partition_for_tuple to someplace in
src/backend/executor and rename the accordingly; maybe it's time for
an execPartition.c? catalog/partition.c is getting really bug, so
it's not a bad thing if some of that stuff gets moved elsewhere. A
lingering question in my mind, though, is whether it's really correct
to think of PartitionTupleRoutingInfo as executor-specific. Maybe
we're going to need that for other things too?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-08-30 03:52:26 Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size)
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-08-30 02:36:19 Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order