Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update
Date
Msg-id 20230221093411.uaiwhld6t2ksl7kw@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Incorrect command tag row count for MERGE with a cross-partition update
List pgsql-hackers
On 2023-Feb-20, Dean Rasheed wrote:

> Playing around with MERGE some more, I noticed that the command tag
> row count is wrong if it does a cross-partition update:
> 
> CREATE TABLE target (a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST (b);
> CREATE TABLE target_p1 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (1);
> CREATE TABLE target_p2 PARTITION OF target FOR VALUES IN (2);
> INSERT INTO target VALUES (1,1);
> 
> MERGE INTO target t USING (VALUES (1)) v(a) ON t.a = v.a
>   WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET b = 2;
> 
> which returns "MERGE 2" when only 1 row was updated, because
> ExecUpdateAct() will update estate->es_processed for a cross-partition
> update (but not for a normal update), and then ExecMergeMatched() will
> update it again.

Hah.

> I think the best fix is to have ExecMergeMatched() pass canSetTag =
> false to ExecUpdateAct(), so that ExecMergeMatched() takes
> responsibility for updating estate->es_processed in all cases.

Sounds sensible.


-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Las mujeres son como hondas:  mientras más resistencia tienen,
 más lejos puedes llegar con ellas"  (Jonas Nightingale, Leap of Faith)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Some revises in adding sorting path
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Seek for helper documents to implement WAL with an FDW