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
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 |