| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in detaching a partition with a foreign key. |
| Date: | 2025-01-20 18:26:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0vjfA5NZ3ncNHO9Py2a6QRYLWE2WWV_nBxExEG8=y-n5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The patch that Amul and I wrote both achieve the same result.
> > The approach that Amul took builds a list of constraint OIDs,
> > which could grow with the number of partitions and foreign keys
> > on those partitions. Maybe not a big deal?
> Nope, not a big deal. It would be a big deal if we were talking about
> 268 million partitions (>1GB palloc size), but that's impractical for
> other reasons.
that's fair.
Patch looks good to me, but I am not sure about this part of the comment:
"Only the topmost one is to be considered here; the child constraints
must be left alone,"
In this case, none of the pg_constraint entries are actually considered. right?
Regards,
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-01-20 18:39:15 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-20 17:57:20 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |