| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2018-04-05 06:51:26 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdOS9+iq+j-ZtKAmXwEtdgXXvJPQxED14nAU5j8F17wTXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>
> I've attached a noticeably editorialized patch:
>
>
+ /*
+ * As long as we don't support an UPDATE of INSERT ON CONFLICT
for
+ * a partitioned table we shouldn't reach to a case where tuple
to
+ * be lock is moved to another partition due to concurrent
update
+ * of the partition key.
+ */
+ Assert(!ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid));
+
This is no longer true; at least not entirely. We still don't support ON
CONFLICT DO UPDATE to move a row to a different partition, but otherwise it
works now. See 555ee77a9668e3f1b03307055b5027e13bf1a715.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-05 06:54:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2018-04-05 06:50:42 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |