| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ATTACH PARTITION locking documentation for DEFAULT partitions |
| Date: | 2021-07-27 09:35:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2WjVkX64zq_e=37TUsqiPbkUypvHAzJtnQqHAnY-PAgGmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:\>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The algoritm as described in your patch implies that this recursive
> > locking is conditional on _only_ the check-constraints of the topmost
> > partition ("performed whilst holding ... and all of its
> > sub-partitions, if any"), whereas actually the locking on each
> > (sub-)partition is determined by the constraints of the hierarchy down
> > to that child partition. It in actuality, this should not matter much,
> > but this is a meaningful distinction that I wanted to call out.
>
> I had in mind that was implied, but maybe it's better to be explicit about that.
>
> I've adjusted the patch and attached what I came up with. Let me know
> what you think.
I like this improved wording. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2021-07-27 09:38:36 | Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace |
| Previous Message | Neil Chen | 2021-07-27 09:18:01 | Re: Automatic notification of top transaction IDs |