Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update
Date: 2023-02-22 09:50:05
Message-ID: CAEZATCWTTrGAgTfM_tNoGocnEKkYZT8dEic+Ewf_Ki76YCZ76w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 09:34, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > I think the best fix is to have ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag =
> > false to ExecUpdateAct(), so that ExecMergeMatched() takes
> > responsibility for updating estate->es_processed in all cases.
>
> Sounds sensible.
>

I decided it was also probably worth having a regression test covering
this, since it would be quite easy to break if the code is ever
refactored.

Pushed and back-patched.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-02-22 09:55:30 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-02-22 09:37:35 Re: Reducing connection overhead in pg_upgrade compat check phase