From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Useless code in ExecInitModifyTable |
Date: | 2018-01-15 02:35:26 |
Message-ID: | d539bb1a-e3d8-6a4a-948f-04ff214cc575@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/01/15 11:28, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Fujita-san, Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
>> On 2017/06/21 16:59, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> Commit d3cc37f1d801a6b5cad9bf179274a8d767f1ee50 added this to
>>> ExecInitModifyTable:
>>>
>>> + /* The root table RT index is at the head of the partitioned_rels list */
>>> + if (node->partitioned_rels)
>>> + {
>>> + Index root_rti;
>>> + Oid root_oid;
>>> +
>>> + root_rti = linitial_int(node->partitioned_rels);
>>> + root_oid = getrelid(root_rti, estate->es_range_table);
>>> + rel = heap_open(root_oid, NoLock); /* locked by InitPlan */
>>> + }
>>>
>>> but I noticed that that function doesn't use the relation descriptor at
>>> all. Since partitioned_rels is given in case of an UPDATE/DELETE on a
>>> partitioned table, the relation is opened in that case, but the relation
>>> descriptor isn't referenced at all in initializing WITH CHECK OPTION
>>> constraints and/or RETURNING projections. (The mtstate->resultRelinfo
>>> array is referenced in those initialization, instead.) So, I'd like to
>>> propose to remove this from that function. Attached is a patch for that.
>>
>> Thanks for cleaning that up. I cannot see any problem in applying the patch.
>
> Seems like this has gotten a review (and quite a bit of down-stream
> discussion that seemed pretty positive), and the latest patch still
> applies cleanly and passes the regression tests- is there some reason
> it's still marked as Needs Review? Seems like it should really be in
> Ready for Committer state.
+1.
> Amit, if you agree, would you mind going ahead and changing it?
Sure, done.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-01-15 02:42:30 | Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-01-15 02:33:24 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |