From: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: reload-through-the-top-parent switch the partition table |
Date: | 2017-08-02 05:01:40 |
Message-ID: | CAGPqQf1YpORjb=NVazxqA3O7iOYjETRSqf0WkrtricS9JbXkXA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > My colleague Robert and I had doubt about the order in of TABLE
> > and TABLE_DATA. We thought earlier that reload-thought-root might
> > might not solve the purpose which has been discussed in the above
> > mentioned thread. But later looking into code I realize the sort order
> > for DO_TABLE and DO_TABLE_DATA are different, so we don't need
> > to worry about that issue.
>
> Hmm. Does that mean that table data restoration will *absolutely
> always* follow all CREATE TABLE commands, or is that something that's
> *normally* true but potentially false if dependency sorting switches
> things around?
>
>
Looking at the dbObjectTypePriority comments that seems like data
restoration
will *absolutely always* follow all CREATE TABLE commands.
--
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
Thanks,
Rushabh Lathia
www.EnterpriseDB.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeray Kalayu | 2017-08-02 05:24:43 | Re: On Complex Source Code Reading Strategy |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-08-02 04:56:16 | INSERT ON CONFLICT and partitioned tables |