From: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Date: | 2017-02-15 07:36:32 |
Message-ID: | CAJ3gD9c5Jh3oGcjULG4S1W=5S2SZOBHqrK8hcwMVHEkzyOXM=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 February 2017 at 22:24, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:31:56PM +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> Currently, an update of a partition key of a partition is not
>> allowed, since it requires to move the row(s) into the applicable
>> partition.
>>
>> Attached is a WIP patch (update-partition-key.patch) that removes
>> this restriction. When an UPDATE causes the row of a partition to
>> violate its partition constraint, then a partition is searched in
>> that subtree that can accommodate this row, and if found, the row is
>> deleted from the old partition and inserted in the new partition. If
>> not found, an error is reported.
>
> This is great!
>
> Would it be really invasive to HINT something when the subtree is a
> proper subtree?
I am not quite sure I understood this question. Can you please explain
it a bit more ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ideriha, Takeshi | 2017-02-15 07:39:03 | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-02-15 07:33:08 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |