On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Before that, though, I remain concerned that the PartitionPruneInfo
> data structure the planner is transmitting to the executor is unsafe
> against concurrent ATTACH PARTITION operations. The comment for
> PartitionedRelPruneInfo says in so many words that it's relying on
> indexes in the table's PartitionDesc; how is that not broken by
> 898e5e329?
The only problem with PartitionPruneInfo structures of which I am
aware is that they rely on PartitionDesc offsets not changing. But I
added code in that commit in ExecCreatePartitionPruneState to handle
that exact problem. See also paragraph 5 of the commit message, which
begins with "Although in general..."
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
