Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jesper Pedersen
Subject Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
Date
Msg-id 826e4d52-234a-4d35-73b2-7c6b0a92220e@redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Amit,

On 4/8/19 11:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> As of this commit, hashing functions hashtext() and hashtextextended()
> require a valid collation to be passed in.  ISTM,
> satisfies_hash_partition() that's called by hash partition constraint
> checking should have been changed to use FunctionCall2Coll() interface to
> account for the requirements of the above commit.  I see that it did that
> for compute_partition_hash_value(), which is used by hash partition tuple
> routing.  That also seems to be covered by regression tests, but there are
> no tests that cover satisfies_hash_partition().
> 
> Attached patch is an attempt to fix this.  I've also added Amul Sul who
> can maybe comment on the satisfies_hash_partition() changes.
> 

Yeah, that works here - apart from an issue with the test case; fixed in 
the attached.

Best regards,
  Jesper

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Status of the table access method work
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization