From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Date: | 2017-09-04 02:13:33 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LhWQVQyKaetgOwfo2d5-Qnd53U4o0_sYQSuCfM1XEQaw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 31 August 2017 at 14:15, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks Dilip. I am working on rebasing the patch. Particularly, the
>> partition walker in my patch depended on the fact that all the tables
>> get opened (and then closed) while creating the tuple routing info.
>> But in HEAD, now only the partitioned tables get opened. So need some
>> changes in my patch.
>>
>> The partition walker related changes are going to be inapplicable once
>> the other thread [1] commits the changes for expansion of inheritence
>> in bound-order, but till then I would have to rebase the partition
>> walker changes over HEAD.
>>
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0118a1f2-84bb-19a7-b906-dec040a206f2%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>>
>
> After recent commit 30833ba154, now the partitions are expanded in
> depth-first order. It didn't seem worthwhile rebasing my partition
> walker changes onto the latest code. So in the attached patch, I have
> removed all the partition walker changes.
>
It seems you have forgotten to attach the patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-09-04 02:18:50 | Re: Fix warnings and typo in dshash |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-09-04 02:10:42 | Re: pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys after initialization |