Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appearsbroken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

> Do we need to update documentation?  Perhaps, some clarification on the
> inheritance/partitioning behavior somewhere.

Yeah, I think so.

> -    Assert((enrmd->reliddesc == InvalidOid) != (enrmd->tupdesc == NULL));
> +    Assert((enrmd->reliddesc == InvalidOid) !=
> +           (enrmd->tupdesc == NULL));
>
> Perhaps, unintentional change?

Agreed; line is not long enough to need to wrap.

> I'm not sure if it's significant for transition tables, but what if a
> partition's BR trigger modified the tuple?  Would we want to include the
> modified version of the tuple in the transition table or the original as
> the patch does?  Same for the code in CopyFrom().

Good spot!  If the BR trigger on the child table modifies or
suppresses the action, I strongly feel that must be reflected in the
transition table.  This needs to be fixed.

--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/