From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: doc: improve the restriction description of using indexes on REPLICA IDENTITY FULL table. |
Date: | 2023-07-13 05:25:15 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAs-UeuUX1nY2md+n8=vDpbGKoXWv0PQiF2388wYi=bwA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:15 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 5:31 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think we have concluded any action for it. I agree that
> > > IsIndexOnlyOnExpression() is redundant. We don't need to check *all*
> > > index fields actually. I've attached a draft patch. It removes
> > > IsIndexOnlyOnExpression() and merges
> > > RemoteRelContainsLeftMostColumnOnIdx() to
> > > FindUsableIndexForReplicaIdentityFull. One concern is that we no
> > > longer do the assertion check with
> > > IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull(). What do you think?
> > >
> >
> > I think this is a valid concern. Can't we move all the checks
> > (including the remote attrs check) inside
> > IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() and then call it from both
> > places? Won't we have attrmap information available in the callers of
> > FindReplTupleInLocalRel() via ApplyExecutionData?
>
> You mean to pass ApplyExecutionData or attrmap down to
> RelationFindReplTupleByIndex()? I think it would be better to call it
> from FindReplTupleInLocalRel() instead.
I've attached a draft patch for this idea.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
remove_redundant_check_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 10.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-07-13 05:26:42 | Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-07-13 05:03:50 | Re: Changing types of block and chunk sizes in memory contexts |