Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Erik Nordström
Subject Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)
Date
Msg-id CACAa4VJ_DG3jHCRo8vvrB+9bT+SQ1szobD3NseFniURQM25HSg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)  ("Hans-Jürgen Schönig (PostgreSQL)" <postgres@cybertec.at>)
Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)  (Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I am looking for feedback on the possibility of adding a table expansion hook to PostgreSQL (see attached patch). The motivation for this is to allow extensions to optimize table expansion. In particular, TimescaleDB does its own table expansion in order to apply a number of optimizations, including partition pruning (note that TimescaleDB uses inheritance since PostgreSQL 9.6 rather than declarative partitioning ). There's currently no official hook for table expansion, but TimescaleDB has been using the get_relation_info hook for this purpose. Unfortunately, PostgreSQL 12 broke this for us since it moved expansion to a later stage where we can no longer control it without some pretty bad hacks. Given that PostgreSQL 12 changed the expansion state of a table for the get_relation_info hook, we are thinking about this as a regression and are wondering if this could be considered against the head of PG 12 or maybe even PG 13 (although we realize feature freeze has been reached)?

The attached patch is against PostgreSQL master (commit fb544735) and is about ~10 lines of code. It doesn't change any existing behavior; it only allows getting control of expand_inherited_rtentry, which would make a huge difference for TimescaleDB.

Best regards,

Erik
Engineering team lead
Timescale


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Should smgrdounlink() be removed?
Next
From: "Hans-Jürgen Schönig (PostgreSQL)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)