Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Lba7xtbEmXiW_4K4cnMLszc0aUdfekH603ocCjzd5tnA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> As far as I understand, it is to ensure that for deleted rows, nothing >> more needs to be done. For example, see the below check in >> ExecUpdate/ExecDelete. >> if (!ItemPointerEquals(tupleid, &hufd.ctid)) >> { >> .. >> } >> .. >> >> Also a similar check in ExecLockRows. Now for deleted rows, if the >> t_ctid wouldn't point to itself, then in the mentioned functions, we >> were not in a position to conclude that the row is deleted. > > Right, so we would have to find all such checks and change them to use > some other method to conclude that the row is deleted. What method > would we use? > I think before doing above check we can simply check if ctid.ip_blkid contains InvalidBlockNumber, then return an error. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: