| From: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Default Partition for Range | 
| Date: | 2017-08-22 02:23:18 | 
| Message-ID: | CAOgcT0MWj9Ao=f7C6ZyFce4obNwa_jSWTETMd_-bRfg51zCXbg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi Beena,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> PFA the patch rebased over v25 patches of default list partition [1]
>
Thanks for rebasing.
Range partition review:
1.
There are lot of changes in RelationBuildPartitionDesc(). It was hard to
understand why these changes are needed for default partition. I did not
find
any explanation for the same, may be I am missing some discussion? Only
when I looked into it carefully I could understand that these changes are
nothing but optimization for identifying the distinct bounds.
I think it is better to keep the patch for code optimisation/simplification
in a
separate patch. I have separated the patch(0001) in attached patches for
this
purpose.
2.
+ * For default partition, it returns the negation of the constraints of all
+ * the other partitions.
+ *
+ * If we end up with an empty result list, we return NULL.
We can rephrase the comment as below:
"For default partition, function returns the negation of the constraints of
all
the other partitions. If default is the only partition then returns NULL."
3.
@@ -2396,6 +2456,8 @@ make_one_range_bound(PartitionKey key, int index,
List *datums, bool lower)
    ListCell   *lc;
    int         i;
+   Assert(datums != NULL);
+
    bound = (PartitionRangeBound *) palloc0(sizeof(PartitionRangeBound));
    bound->index = index;
    bound->datums = (Datum *) palloc0(key->partnatts * sizeof(Datum));
I am not really convinced, why should we have above Assert.
4.
 static List *
-get_qual_for_range(PartitionKey key, PartitionBoundSpec *spec)
+get_qual_for_range(Relation parent, PartitionBoundSpec *spec,
+                  bool for_default)
 {
The addition and the way flag ‘for_default’ is being used is very confusing.
At this moment I am not able to think about a alternate solution to the
way you have used this flag. But will try and see if I can come up with
an alternate approach.
I still need to look at the test, and need to do some manual testing. Will
update here with any findings.
Patches:
0001: Refactoring/simplification of code in RelationBuildPartitionDesc(),
0002: implementation of default range partition by Beena.
Regards,
Jeevan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Refactor-RelationBuildPartitionDesc.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.5 KB | 
| 0002-Add-support-for-default-partition-for-range.patch | application/octet-stream | 25.9 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-08-22 03:31:11 | Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization | 
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-08-22 00:55:23 | Re: Tuple-routing for certain partitioned tables not working as expected |