| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On partitioning |
| Date: | 2014-08-29 17:56:52 |
| Message-ID: | 22872.1409335012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-08-29 13:29:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> An actual fix would presumably involve adding a partition number to the
>> ctid chain field in tuples in partitioned tables. The reason I bring it
>> up now is that we'd have to commit to doing that (or at least leaving room
>> for it) in the first implementation, if we don't want to have an on-disk
>> compatibility break.
> What we could do is to add some sort of 'jump' tuple when moving a tuple
> from one relation to another. So, when updating a tuple between
> partitions we add another in the old partition with xmin_jump =
> xmax_jump = xmax_old and have the jump tuple's content point to the new
> relation.
Hm, that might work. It sounds more feasible than Alvaro's suggestion
of abusing cmax --- I don't think that field is free for use in this
context.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-08-29 18:03:03 | Re: clang warning on master |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-08-29 17:50:45 | clang warning on master |