Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id 5AABADE2.3040805@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
(2018/03/16 19:43), Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:

> @@ -106,6 +120,9 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
>      int         num_subplan_partition_offsets;
>      TupleTableSlot *partition_tuple_slot;
>      TupleTableSlot *root_tuple_slot;
> +   List      **partition_arbiter_indexes;
> +   TupleTableSlot **partition_conflproj_slots;
> +   TupleTableSlot **partition_existing_slots;
>   } PartitionTupleRouting;

> I am curious why you decided to add these members to
> PartitionTupleRouting structure. Wouldn't ResultRelationInfo be a better
> place to track these or is there some rule that we follow?

I just started reviewing the patch, so maybe I'm missing something, but 
I think it would be a good idea to have these in that structure, not in 
ResultRelInfo, because these would be required only for partitions 
chosen via tuple routing.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: inserts into partitioned table may cause crash
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables