Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRdZHAbtzD18fDdt5d2PpNqrXU7e_S=0MsPFxat3tVHJHQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Looking at the number of issues where we have to fix tests based on
the relkind checks, I think, we have to consider creating macros as
described in my reply to thread with subject " Allowing extended stats
on foreign and partitioned tables".

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/04/03 11:39, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/04/01 5:29, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Thanks for reviewing, and thanks to Maksim as well, and thanks to Amit
>>> for writing the patch.
>>
>> Thanks for committing. :)
>
> I noticed that I had missed a couple of places that would try to scan
> partitioned tables, resulting in file access.
>
> 1. In validateCheckConstraint(), along with foreign tables, must ignore
> partitioned tables.
>
> 2. DefineQueryRewrite() may try to scan a partitioned table in the case of
> converting a table to view, where we must make sure that the table being
> converted is empty.  It's checked by scanning the heap, which we should
> not do for a partitioned table.  Nor should we try to drop the storage
> once ready to make the table into a REKIND_VIEW relation (because all
> other checks passed okaying the conversion).
>
> Tests are added for both the cases.
>
> Thanks,
> Amit
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>



-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly