Hi Robert,
I have tried to address your comments in the V22 set of patches[1].
Please find my feedback inlined on your comments.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Needs to be rebased over b08df9cab777427fdafe633ca7b8abf29817aa55.
>
Rebased on master latest commit: ca793c59a51e94cedf8cbea5c29668bf8fa298f3
> - Still no documentation.
>
Yes, this is long pending, and I will make this is a priority to get it
included
in next set of my patches.
- Should probably be merged with the patch to add default partitioning
> for ranges.
Beena is already rebasing her patch on my latest patches, so I think getting
them merged here won't be an issue, mostly will be just like one more patch
on top my patches.
> Other stuff I noticed:
>
> - The regression tests don't seem to check that the scan-skipping
> logic works as expected. We have regression tests for that case for
> attaching regular partitions, and it seems like it would be worth
> testing the default-partition case as well.
>
Added a test case for default in alter_table.sql.
- check_default_allows_bound() assumes that if
> canSkipPartConstraintValidation() fails for the default partition, it
> will also fail for every subpartition of the default partition. That
> is, once we commit to scanning one child partition, we're committed to
> scanning them all. In practice, that's probably not a huge
> limitation, but if it's not too much code, we could keep the top-level
> check but also check each partitioning individually as we reach it,
> and skip the scan for any individual partitions for which the
> constraint can be proven. For example, suppose the top-level table is
> list-partitioned with a partition for each of the most common values,
> and then we range-partition the default partition.
>
I have tried to address this in patch 0007, please let me know your views on
that patch.
- The changes to the regression test results in 0004 make the error
> messages slightly worse. The old message names the default partition,
> whereas the new one does not. Maybe that's worth avoiding.
The only way for this, I can think of to achieve this is to store the name
of
the default relation in AlteredTableInfo, currently I am using a flag for
realizing if the scanned table is a default partition to throw specific
error.
But, IMO storing a string in AlteredTableInfo just for error purpose might
be
overkill. Your suggestions?
> Specific comments:
>
> + * Also, invalidate the parent's and a sibling default partition's
> relcache,
> + * so that the next rebuild will load the new partition's info into
> parent's
> + * partition descriptor and default partition constraints(which are
> dependent
> + * on other partition bounds) are built anew.
>
> I find this a bit unclear, and it also repeats the comment further
> down. Maybe something like: Also, invalidate the parent's relcache
> entry, so that the next rebuild will load he new partition's info into
> its partition descriptor. If there is a default partition, we must
> invalidate its relcache entry as well.
>
> Done.
> + /*
> + * The default partition constraints depend upon the partition bounds
> of
> + * other partitions. Adding a new(or even removing existing) partition
> + * would invalidate the default partition constraints. Invalidate the
> + * default partition's relcache so that the constraints are built
> anew and
> + * any plans dependent on those constraints are invalidated as well.
> + */
>
> Here, I'd write: The partition constraint for the default partition
> depends on the partition bounds of every other partition, so we must
> invalidate the relcache entry for that partition every time a
> partition is added or removed.
>
> Done.
> + /*
> + * Default partition cannot be added if there already
> + * exists one.
> + */
> + if (spec->is_default)
> + {
> + overlap = partition_bound_has_default(boundinfo);
> + with = boundinfo->default_index;
> + break;
> + }
>
> To support default partitioning for range, this is going to have to be
> moved above the switch rather than done inside of it. And there's
> really no downside to putting it there.
>
> Done.
> + * constraint, by *proving* that the existing constraints of the table
> + * *imply* the given constraints. We include the table's check
> constraints and
>
> Both the comma and the asterisks are unnecessary.
>
> Done.
> + * Check whether all rows in the given table (scanRel) obey given
> partition
>
> obey the given
>
> I think the larger comment block could be tightened up a bit, like
> this: Check whether all rows in the given table obey the given
> partition constraint; if so, it can be attached as a partition. We do
> this by scanning the table (or all of its leaf partitions) row by row,
> except when the existing constraints are sufficient to prove that the
> new partitioning constraint must already hold.
>
> Done.
> + /* Check if we can do away with having to scan the table being
> attached. */
>
> If possible, skip the validation scan.
>
> Fixed.
> + * Set up to have the table be scanned to validate the partition
> + * constraint If it's a partitioned table, we instead schedule its
> leaf
> + * partitions to be scanned.
>
> I suggest: Prepare to scan the default partition (or, if it is itself
> partitioned, all of its leaf partitions).
>
> Done.
> + int default_index; /* Index of the default partition if any;
> -1
> + * if there isn't one */
>
> "if any" is a bit redundant with "if there isn't one"; note the
> phrasing of the preceding entry.
>
Done.
> + /*
> + * Skip if it's a partitioned table. Only RELKIND_RELATION
> relations
> + * (ie, leaf partitions) need to be scanned.
> + */
> + if (part_rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE ||
> + part_rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE)
>
> The comment talks about what must be included in our list of things to
> scan, but the code tests for the things that can be excluded. I
> suspect the comment has the right idea and the code should be adjusted
> to match, but anyway they should be consistent. Also, the correct way
> to punctuate i.e. is like this: (i.e. leaf partitions) You should have
> a period after each letter, but no following comma.
>
> Done.
> + * The default partition must be already having an
> AccessExclusiveLock.
>
> I think we should instead change DefineRelation to open (rather than
> just lock) the default partition and pass the Relation as an argument
> here so that we need not reopen it.
>
> I have fixed this as a part of patch 0006.
> + /* Construct const from datum */
> + val = makeConst(key->parttypid[0],
> + key->parttypmod[0],
> + key->parttypcoll[0],
> + key->parttyplen[0],
> + *boundinfo->datums[i],
> + false, /* isnull */
> + key->parttypbyval[0] /* byval */ );
>
> The /* byval */ comment looks a bit redundant, but I think this could
> use a comment along the lines of: /* Only single-column list
> partitioning is supported, so we only need to worry about the
> partition key with index 0. */ And I'd also add an Assert() verifying
> the the partition key has exactly 1 column, so that this breaks a bit
> more obviously if someone removes that restriction in the future.
>
Removed the /* byval */ comment.
The assert is taken care as part of commit
5efccc1cb43005a832776ed9158d2704fd976f8f.
> + * Handle NULL partition key here if there's a null-accepting list
> + * partition, else later it will be routed to the default
> partition if
> + * one exists.
>
> This isn't a great update of the existing comment -- it's drifted from
> explaining the code to which it is immediately attached to a more
> general discussion of NULL handling. I'd just say something like: If
> this is a NULL, send it to the null-accepting partition. Otherwise,
> route by searching the array of partition bounds.
>
> Done.
> + if (tab->is_default_partition)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_OBJECT_DEFINITION),
> + errmsg("updated partition constraint for
> default partition would be violated by some row")));
> + else
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode(ERRCODE_CHECK_VIOLATION),
>
> While there's room for debate about the correct error code here, it's
> hard for me to believe that it's correct to use one error code for the
> is_default_partition case and a different error code the rest of the
> time.
>
> Per discussion here[2], I had changed this error code, but as of now I have
restored this to ERRCODE_CHECK_VIOLATION to be consistent with the error
when
non-default partition being attached has some existing row that violates
partition constraints. Similarly, for consistency I have changed this in
check_default_allows_bound() too.
I agree that there is still a room for debate here after this change too,
and
also this change reverts the suggestion by Ashutosh.
+ * previously cached default partition constraints; those
> constraints
> + * won't stand correct after addition(or even removal) of a
> partition.
>
> won't be correct after addition or removal
>
Done.
>
> + * allow any row that qualifies for this new partition. So, check
> if
> + * the existing data in the default partition satisfies this
> *would be*
> + * default partition constraint.
>
> check that the existing data in the default partition satisfies the
> constraint as it will exist after adding this partition
>
Done.
>
> + * Need to take a lock on the default partition, refer comment for
> locking
> + * the default partition in DefineRelation().
>
> I'd say: We must also lock the default partition, for the same reasons
> explained in DefineRelation().
>
> And similarly in the other places that refer to that same comment.
>
Done.
>
> + /*
> + * In case of the default partition, the constraint is of the form
> + * "!(result)" i.e. one of the following two forms:
> + * 1. NOT ((keycol IS NULL) OR (keycol = ANY (arr)))
> + * 2. NOT ((keycol IS NOT NULL) AND (keycol = ANY (arr))), where arr
> is an
> + * array of datums in boundinfo->datums.
> + */
>
> Does this survive pgindent? You might need to surround the comment
> with dashes to preserve formatting.
>
> Yes, this din't survive pg_indent, but even adding dashes '--' did not make
the deal(may be I misunderstood the workaround), I have instead added
blank line in the bullets.
I think it would be worth adding a little more text this comment,
> something like this: Note that, in general, applying NOT to a
> constraint expression doesn't necessarily invert the set of rows it
> accepts, because NOT NULL is NULL. However, the partition constraints
> we construct here never evaluate to NULL, so applying NOT works as
> intended.
>
> Added.
> + * Check whether default partition has a row that would fit the
> partition
> + * being attached by negating the partition constraint derived from
> the
> + * bounds. Since default partition is already part of the partitioned
> + * table, we don't need to validate the constraints on the partitioned
> + * table.
>
> Here again, I'd add to the end of the first sentence a parenthetical
> note, like this: ...from the bounds (the partition constraint never
> evaluates to NULL, so negating it like this is safe).
>
> Done.
> I don't understand the second sentence. It seems to contradict the first
> one.
>
Fixed, I removed the second sentence.
> +extern List *get_default_part_validation_constraint(List
> *new_part_constaints);
> #endif /* PARTITION_H */
>
> There should be a blank line after the last prototype and before the
> #endif.
>
> +-- default partition table when it is being used in cahced plan.
>
> Typo.
>
Fixed.
Thanks,
Jeevan Ladhe
Refs:
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0OARciE2X%2BU0rjSKp9VuC279dYcCGkc3nCWKhHQ1_m2rw%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobkFaptsmQiP94sbAKTtDKS6Azz%2BP4Bw1FxzmNrnyVa0w%40mail.gmail.com
