Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobq2iA3k8t20F-GZ_OQpLr05bmv9smcQf--ekkahE=dhw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:02 AM David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> If the PartitionDesc from the parallel worker has an extra partition
> than what was there when the plan was built then the partition index
> to subplan index translation will be incorrect as the
> find_matching_subplans_recurse() will call get_matching_partitions()
> using the context with the PartitionDesc containing the additional
> partition. The return value from get_matching_partitions() is fine,
> it's just that the code inside the while ((i =
> bms_next_member(partset, i)) >= 0) loop that will do the wrong thing.
> It could even crash if partset has an index out of bounds of the
> subplan_map or subpart_map arrays.

Is there any chance you've missed the fact that in one of the later
patches in the series I added code to adjust the subplan_map and
subpart_map arrays to compensate for any extra partitions?

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Tighten up a few overly lax regexes in pg_dump's tap tests
Next
From: Alexey Kondratov
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions