Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bf5272fd-0055-511b-ece5-611155d3d6db@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for taking a look. On 2017/04/28 5:24, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Amit Langote > <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> Do we need to update the documentation? >> >> Yes, I think we should. How about as in the attached? > > Looks reasonable, but I was thinking you might also update the section > which contrasts inheritance-based partitioning with declarative > partitioning. It seems to me that there is no difference in behavior between inheritance-based and declarative partitioning as far as statement-level triggers are concerned (at least currently). In both the cases, we fire statement-level triggers only for the table specified in the command. Maybe, we will fix things someday so that statement-level triggers will be fired for all the tables in a inheritance hierarchy when the root parent is updated or deleted, but that's currently not true. We may never implement that behavior for declarative partitioned tables though, so there will be a difference if and when we implement the former. Am I missing something? >> By the way, code changes I made in the attached are such that a subsequent >> patch could implement firing statement-level triggers of all the tables in >> a partition hierarchy, which it seems we don't want to do. Should then >> the code be changed to not create ResultRelInfos of all the tables but >> only the root table (the one mentioned in the command)? You will see that >> the patch adds fields named es_nonleaf_result_relations and >> es_num_nonleaf_result_relations, whereas just es_root_result_relation >> would perhaps do, for example. > > It seems better not to create any ResultRelInfos that we don't > actually need, so +1 for such a revision to the patch. OK, done. It took a bit more work than I thought. Updated patch attached. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: