Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYYnN9jLaWwzFUiwB1-rC=2q6xwqayuVNTCP+Cyc1Ku3Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I understand, it is to ensure that for deleted rows, nothing
> more needs to be done.  For example, see the below check in
> ExecUpdate/ExecDelete.
> if (!ItemPointerEquals(tupleid, &hufd.ctid))
> {
> ..
> }
> ..
>
> Also a similar check in ExecLockRows.  Now for deleted rows, if the
> t_ctid wouldn't point to itself, then in the mentioned functions, we
> were not in a position to conclude that the row is deleted.

Right, so we would have to find all such checks and change them to use
some other method to conclude that the row is deleted.  What method
would we use?

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] statement_timeout is not working as expected with postgres_fdw
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is comingfor table which is already removed