On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Sep-08, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Yeah, we need to make sure that ExecPartitionCheck gets a slot whose
> > TupleDesc matches the partition's. Actually we do have such dedicated
> > slots for partitions around (for both sub-partitioned
On 2020-Sep-08, Amit Langote wrote:
> Yeah, we need to make sure that ExecPartitionCheck gets a slot whose
> TupleDesc matches the partition's. Actually we do have such dedicated
> slots for partitions around (for both sub-partitioned and leaf
> partitions), so we can simply use them instead of c
On 2020-Sep-08, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres added to CC because of TTS interface: apparently calling
> slot_getallattrs() on a virtual slot raises error that "getsomeattrs is
> not required to be called on a virtual tuple table slot". I'm thinking
> that this exposes implementation details tha
Hi,
Andres added to CC because of TTS interface: apparently calling
slot_getallattrs() on a virtual slot raises error that "getsomeattrs is
not required to be called on a virtual tuple table slot". I'm thinking
that this exposes implementation details that should not be necessary
for a caller to
Hello Amit,
On 2020-Sep-08, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:44 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > On 2020-Sep-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, it looks like we can get away with initializing the RRI to 0, and
> > > then explicitly handle that case in ExecPartitionCheckEmitErro
Hi Alvaro,
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:44 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Sep-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Ah, it looks like we can get away with initializing the RRI to 0, and
> > then explicitly handle that case in ExecPartitionCheckEmitError, as in
> > the attached (which means reindenting,
On 2020-Sep-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ah, it looks like we can get away with initializing the RRI to 0, and
> then explicitly handle that case in ExecPartitionCheckEmitError, as in
> the attached (which means reindenting, but I left it alone to make it
> easy to read).
Well, that was silly -- t
Ah, it looks like we can get away with initializing the RRI to 0, and
then explicitly handle that case in ExecPartitionCheckEmitError, as in
the attached (which means reindenting, but I left it alone to make it
easy to read). It kinda sucks because we don't report the tuple that
causes the error,
On 2020-Sep-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, they are fake in that the ri_RangeTableIndex they carry is bogus,
> which means that ExecBuildSlotValueDescription will misbehave if the
> partitioned default partition has a different column order than its
> parent. That can be evidenced by changing
On 2020-Sep-04, Amit Langote wrote:
Hello
> FWIW, I still prefer "minimally valid ResultRelInfo" to "fake
> ResultRelInfo", because those aren't really fake, are they? They are
> as valid as any other ResultRelInfo as far I can see. I said
> "minimally valid" because a fully-valid partition Res
Hi Alvaro,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:28 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Also, I should have pointed out that ExecInsert doesn't actually check
> the partitin constraint except in very specific cases; what it does is
> expect that the partition routing code got it right. So the comment
> you're addin
Also, I should have pointed out that ExecInsert doesn't actually check
the partitin constraint except in very specific cases; what it does is
expect that the partition routing code got it right. So the comment
you're adding about that is wrong, and it did misled me into changing
your code in a way
On 2020-Sep-03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> + /*
> + * If setting up a PartitionDispatch for a sub-partitioned table, we may
> + * also need a fake ResultRelInfo for checking the partition constraint
> + * later; set that up now.
> + */
> + if (parent_pd)
> + {
> +
Thanks for this fix! Looking into it now.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c
b/src/backend/executor/execPartition.c
index 4d34734a45..fe42670e0a 100
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:50 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Starting a new thread to discuss a bug related to $subject that Hao Wu
> reported on thread titled "ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION
> CONCURRENTLY" [1]. I have been able to reproduce the bug using steps
> that Hao gave in that email:
Hi,
Starting a new thread to discuss a bug related to $subject that Hao Wu
reported on thread titled "ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION
CONCURRENTLY" [1]. I have been able to reproduce the bug using steps
that Hao gave in that email:
create table tpart (i int, j int) partition by range(i);
create
16 matches
Mail list logo
