From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tablecmds.c/MergeAttributes() cleanup |
Date: | 2024-01-24 06:27:45 |
Message-ID: | CAExHW5vz7A-skzt05=4frFx9-VPjfjK4jKQZT7ufRNh4J7=xmQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Peter,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:13 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 06.12.23 09:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The (now) second patch is also still of interest to me, but I have since
> > noticed that I think [0] should be fixed first, but to make that fix
> > simpler, I would like the first patch from here.
> >
> > [0]:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/24656cec-d6ef-4d15-8b5b-e8dfc9c833a7%40eisentraut.org
>
> The remaining patch in this series needed a rebase and adjustment.
>
> The above precondition still applies.
While working on identity support and now while looking at the
compression problem you referred to, I found MergeAttribute() to be
hard to read. It's hard to follow high level logic in that function
since the function is not modular. I took a stab at modularising a
part of it. Attached is the resulting patch series.
0001 is your patch as is
0002 is pgindent fix and also fixing what I think is a typo/thinko
from 0001. If you are fine with the changes, 0002 should be merged
into 0003.
0003 separates the part of code merging a child attribute to the
corresponding inherited attribute into its own function.
0004 does the same for code merging inherited attributes incrementally.
I have kept 0003 and 0004 separate in case we pick one and not the
other. But they can be committed as a single commit.
The two new functions have some common code and some differences.
Common code is not surprising since merging attributes whether from
child definition or from inheritance parents will have common rules.
Differences are expected in cases when child attributes need to be
treated differently. But the differences may point us to some
yet-unknown bugs; compression being one of those differences. I think
the next step should combine these functions into one so that all the
logic to merge one attribute is at one place. I haven't attempted it;
wanted to propose the idea first.
I can see that this moduralization will lead to another and we will be
able to reduce MergeAttribute() to a set of function calls reflecting
its high level logic and push the detailed implementation into minion
functions like this.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0002-Mark-NULL-constraint-in-merged-definition-i-20240124.patch | text/x-patch | 1.5 KB |
0004-Separate-function-to-merge-next-parent-attr-20240124.patch | text/x-patch | 14.5 KB |
0001-MergeAttributes-convert-pg_attribute-back-t-20240124.patch | text/x-patch | 17.1 KB |
0003-Separate-function-to-merge-a-child-attribut-20240124.patch | text/x-patch | 13.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-01-24 06:34:43 | Re: partitioning and identity column |
Previous Message | Shubham Khanna | 2024-01-24 06:11:01 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |