Re: PartitionDispatch's partdesc field

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PartitionDispatch's partdesc field
Date: 2018-07-27 13:44:54
Message-ID: CA+TgmobA0u-2-By4PwegcNq=QszVtpcLtj5cYnoutxtVLjri6g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Another alternative, which I think might make more sense, is to make
>> use pd->key and pd->partdesc in preference to pd->reldesc->rd_partkey
>> and pd->reldesc->rd_partdesc. It seems to me that the idea of the
>> PartitionDispatch structure is that it gathers together all of the
>> information that we need for tuple routing, so it might make sense for
>> the tuple routing code ought to get the information from there rather
>> than referring back to the RelationDesc. See attached
>> pd-partdesc-use.patch.
>
> +1 to pd-partdesc-use.patch.

OK, that makes 2 votes for that alternative and 0 for everything else
combined, so I've committed that version.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-07-27 14:16:37 Re: Alter index rename concurrently to
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-07-27 13:36:31 Re: Auditing via logical decoding