Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=2ZQ+mujsvWXhOqaNxpc2-0hDev6q7a+XrbOn2=cr7=0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I spent a couple of hours drafting a proof-of-concept to see if my
> hunch was right.  It seems to work correctly so far and isn't huge
> (but certainly needs more testing and work):
>
>  6 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)

[Adding Andrew Gierth]

Here is a new version of the patch to fix transition tables with
wCTEs, rebased on top of
transition-tuples-from-child-tables-v10.patch[1] which must be applied
first.

This is patch 2 of a stack of 3 patches addressing currently known
problems with transition tables.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D1Ei_0yN%2BvKTHHsTYdajaY59LBMUunxmpfhBU-eQQzqxA%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appearsbroken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT