Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1756691.1664855667@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> ... One more thing: maybe we should rethink where to put >> extraUpdatedCols. Between the facts that it's not used for >> actual permissions checks, and that it's calculated by the >> rewriter not parser, it doesn't seem like it really belongs >> in RelPermissionInfo. Should we keep it in RangeTblEntry? >> Should it go somewhere else entirely? I'm just speculating, >> but now is a good time to think about it. > I've kept extraUpdatedCols in RangeTblEntry in the latest patch, but > perhaps it makes sense to put that into Query? That's got morally the same problem as keeping it in RangeTblEntry: those are structures that are built by the parser. Hacking on them later isn't terribly clean. I wonder if it could make sense to postpone calculation of the extraUpdatedCols out of the rewriter and into the planner, with the idea that it ends up $someplace in the finished plan tree but isn't part of the original parsetree. A different aspect of this is that putting it in Query doesn't make a lot of sense unless there is only one version of the bitmap per Query. In simple UPDATEs that would be true, but I think that inherited/partitioned UPDATEs would need one per result relation, which is likely the reason it got dumped in RangeTblEntry to begin with. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: