Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200812162718.ycxrktzoe6rpdy5k@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table)
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2020-08-12 14:19:12 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:02 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > >> Medium term I think we should just plain out forbid references to system > > >> columns in partioned tables Or at least insist that all partitions have > > >> that column. > > > > > Performance-wise I would prefer the former, because the latter would > > > involve checking *all* partitions statically in the INSERT case, > > > something that we've avoided doing so far. > > > > It's not like we don't have a technology for doing that. The way this > > ideally would work, IMV, is that the parent partitioned table either > > has or doesn't have a given system column. If it does, then every > > child must too, just like the way things work for user columns. > > Ah, I may have misread "insisting that all partitions have a given > system column" as doing that on every query, but maybe Andres meant > what you are describing here. I think Tom's formulation makes sense. > > This'd require (a) some sort of consensus about which kinds of system > > columns can make sense --- as Andres noted, 32-bit xmin might not be > > the best choice here --- and (b) some notation for users to declare > > which of these columns they want in a partitioned table. Once upon > > a time we had WITH OIDS, maybe that idea could be extended. > > For (a), isn't there already a consensus that all table AMs support at > least the set of system columns described in 5.5 System Columns [1] > even if the individual members of that set are no longer the best > choice at this point? I don't think there is. I don't think xmin/xmax/cmin/cmax should be among those. tableoid and ctid are handled by generic code, so I think they would be among the required columns. Where do you see that concensus? > I do agree that we'd need (b) in some form to require AMs to fill > those columns which it seems is not the case currently. Hm? What are you referencing here? Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: