| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |
| Date: | 2018-06-08 16:43:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f8FhFLU_OFZvcM6WwKRiX7e9TxNe8k6qeg_7W=ta=8Naw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 June 2018 at 03:24, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I was also wondering about introducing a new function call in this path
> where previously was none. Given the amount of other stuff that's
> happening when a tuple is inserted, I suppose it's not worth worrying
> about in terms of making this an inline function in the header.
I wondered about that too. I've not tested it again, but I do have
another patch locally which can about double the speed of COPY FROM
for partitioned tables, so I have to admit I did gawk at the
additional function call idea, but I'd rather see this fixed than on
the shelf, so I went with it.
I'll leave it up to you to how you'd like to format the if statement.
I've written it the way I'm happy with.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2018-06-08 16:51:37 | Re: Bug in either collation docs or code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-08 16:41:15 | Re: Bug in either collation docs or code |