From: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Date: | 2017-06-07 11:12:25 |
Message-ID: | CAJ3gD9cCUs8e6dn=rF3RfeErBs_pBfG_r1s5FuCTa1BOL3nwJg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 June 2017 at 23:52, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, according to that, below would be the logic :
>>
>> Run partition constraint check on the original NEW row.
>> If it succeeds :
>> {
>> Fire BR UPDATE trigger on the original partition.
>> Run partition constraint check again with the modified NEW row
>> (may be do this only if the trigger modified the partition key)
>> If it fails,
>> abort.
>> Else
>> proceed with the usual local update.
>> }
>> else
>> {
>> Fire BR UPDATE trigger on original partition.
>> Find the right partition for the modified NEW row.
>> If it is the same partition,
>> proceed with the usual local update.
>> else
>> do the row movement.
>> }
>
> Sure, that sounds about right, although the "Fire BR UPDATE trigger on
> the original partition." is the same in both branches, so I'm not
> quite sure why you have that in the "if" block.
Actually after coding this logic, it looks a bit different. See
ExecUpdate() in the attached file trigger_related_changes.patch
----
Now that we are making sure trigger won't change the partition of the
tuple, next thing we need to do is, make sure the tuple routing setup
is done *only* if the UPDATE is modifying partition keys. Otherwise,
this will degrade normal update performance.
Below is the logic I am implementing for determining whether the
UPDATE is modifying partition keys.
In ExecInitModifyTable() ...
Call GetUpdatedColumns(mtstate->rootResultRelInfo, estate) to get
updated_columns.
For each of the updated_columns :
{
Check if the column is part of partition key quals of any of
the relations in mtstate->resultRelInfo[] array.
/*
* mtstate->resultRelInfo[] contains exactly those leaf partitions
* which qualify the update quals.
*/
If (it is part of partition key quals of at least one of the relations)
{
Do ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting() for the root partition.
break;
}
}
Few things need to be considered :
Use Relation->rd_partcheck to get partition check quals of each of the
relations in mtstate->resultRelInfo[].
The Relation->rd_partcheck of the leaf partitions would include the
ancestors' partition quals as well. So we are good: we don't have to
explicitly get the upper partition constraints. Note that an UPDATE
can modify a column which is not used in a partition constraint
expressions of any of the partitions or partitioned tables in the
subtree, but that column may have been used in partition constraint of
a partitioned table belonging to upper subtree.
All of the relations in mtstate->resultRelInfo are already open. So we
don't need to re-open any more relations to get the partition quals.
The column bitmap set returned by GetUpdatedColumns() refer to
attribute numbers w.r.t. to the root partition. And the
mstate->resultRelInfo[] have attnos w.r.t. to the leaf partitions. So
we need to do something similar to map_partition_varattnos() to change
the updated columns attnos to the leaf partitions and walk down the
partition constraint expressions to find if the attnos are present
there.
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
trigger_related_changes.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2017-06-07 11:27:37 | Re: Server ignores contents of SASLInitialResponse |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-06-07 10:49:00 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |