RE: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better
Date
Msg-id OS0PR01MB571682962016CC48932872D6942D9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > After 86dc900, In " src/include/nodes/pathnodes.h ", I noticed that it
> > uses the word " partitioned UPDATE " in the comment above struct
> RowIdentityVarInfo.
> >
> > But, it seems " inherited UPDATE " is used in the rest of places.
> > Is it better to keep them consistent by using " inherited UPDATE " ?
> 
> Yeah, I would not be opposed to fixing that.  Like this maybe (patch attached)?

> - * In partitioned UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child partitions to share
> + * In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child tables to 
> + share

Thanks for the change, it looks good to me.

Best regards,
houzj

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE