Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYUfTjgWFjDWDO34OprAEkVNou4QOAvnKqc83MA+D9i5Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although partition constraints become more simple, there isn't any performance
> gain with 0005 patch. Also I am little skeptic about logic in 0005 where we
> copied extended hash function info from the partition key, what if parent is
> changed while we are using it? Do we need to keep lock on parent until commit in
> satisfies_hash_partition?

I don't think it should be possible for the parent to be changed.  I
mean, the partition key is altogether immutable -- it can't be changed
after creation time.  The partition bounds can be changed for
individual partitions but that would require a lock on the partition.

Can you give an example of the kind of scenario about which you are concerned?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksandr Parfenov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] A hook for session start
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11)