From: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |
Date: | 2018-07-11 04:34:29 |
Message-ID: | CAJ3gD9eJvrn7o-y1ECfHTHUpxTV-RcUP5jEu5sNw4MT9ohTLcQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 July 2018 at 09:48, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>>
>>
>>> Please move the output arguments at the end of argument lists;
>>
>> make sense.
>>
>>> also, it
>>> would be great if you add commentary about ExecDelete other undocumented
>>> arguments (tupleDeleted in particular) while you're in the vicinity.
>>>
>>
>> We already have some commentary in the caller of ExecDelete ("For some
>> reason if DELETE didn't happen ..."), but I think it will be clear if
>> we can add some comments atop function ExecDelete. I will send the
>> updated patch shortly.
>>
>
> Attached, please find an updated patch based on comments by Alvaro.
> See, if this looks okay to you guys.
Thanks for the patch. It looks good to me.
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-11 04:34:47 | Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-07-11 04:18:59 | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |