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

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqHJz_dzMY-XoZetATmzzFq22QSpn1E9MHrpde_vsKxBYg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE  (Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jesper Pedersen
<jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Ah, crap.  Last minute changes are bad.

Thanks for fixing.

Thanks,
Amit



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement