From: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting ERROR: could not open file "base/13164/t3_16388" with partition table with ON COMMIT |
Date: | 2018-09-18 05:31:26 |
Message-ID: | CAKcux6moD+1H35kwiPtwSO+re6xm1qAs-HeiyrP8q9TxzoE0vA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
> wrote:
> On 2018/09/13 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> On 2018/09/13 1:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> That seems excessively restrictive. Anything that has storage (e.g.
> >>> matviews) ought to be truncatable, no?
> >
> >> Not by heap_truncate it seems. The header comment of heap_truncate says
> >> that it concerns itself only with ON COMMIT truncation of temporary
> tables:
> >
> > Ah. Well, in that case I'm OK with just a simple test for
> > RELKIND_RELATION, but I definitely feel that it should be inside
> > heap_truncate. Callers don't need to know about the limited scope
> > of what that does.
>
> I guess you meant inside heap_truncate_one_rel. I updated the patch that
> way, but I wonder if we shouldn't also allow other relkinds that have
> storage which RelationTruncate et al can technically deal with.
>
Verified. This patch fixed issue.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Prabhat Sahu | 2018-09-18 05:43:47 | Difference in TO_TIMESTAMP results. |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-09-18 04:52:20 | Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on |