From: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Date: | 2017-06-06 07:33:58 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b95LfWcH2qxFYtytkuxyzWiRDcdFjyzKv3sZEdwivfvh0w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Dilip,
Thanks for review.
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:59 AM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Updated patch attached. Thanks a lot for review.
>>>
>> Minor fix in the document, PFA.
>
> Patch need rebase
>
Done.
> -------
> Function header is not consistent with other neighbouring functions
> (some function contains function name in the header but others don't)
> +/*
> + * Compute the hash value for given not null partition key values.
> + */
>
Done.
> ------
> postgres=# create table t1 partition of t for values with (modulus 2,
> remainder 1) partition by range(a);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# create table t1_1 partition of t1 for values from (8) to (10);
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# insert into t1 values(8);
> 2017-06-03 18:41:46.067 IST [5433] ERROR: new row for relation "t1_1"
> violates partition constraint
> 2017-06-03 18:41:46.067 IST [5433] DETAIL: Failing row contains (8).
> 2017-06-03 18:41:46.067 IST [5433] STATEMENT: insert into t1 values(8);
> ERROR: new row for relation "t1_1" violates partition constraint
> DETAIL: Failing row contains (8).
>
> The value 8 is violating the partition constraint of the t1 and we are
> trying to insert to value in t1,
> still, the error is coming from the leaf level table t1_1, that may be
> fine but from error, it appears that
> it's violating the constraint of t1_1 whereas it's actually violating
> the constraint of t1.
>
> From Implementation, it appears that based on the key are identifying
> the leaf partition and it's only failing during ExecInsert while
> checking the partition constraint.
>
May I ask you, how you sure about 8 is an unfit value for t1 relation?
And what if the value other than 8, for e.g. 7?
Updated patch attached.
Regards,
Amul Sul
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Cleanup_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.9 KB |
0002-hash-partitioning_another_design-v13.patch | application/octet-stream | 77.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-06-06 07:39:50 | Re: Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-06-06 06:40:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |