Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jesper Pedersen
Тема Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
Дата
Msg-id 826e4d52-234a-4d35-73b2-7c6b0a92220e@redhat.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Ответы Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi Amit,

On 4/8/19 11:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> As of this commit, hashing functions hashtext() and hashtextextended()
> require a valid collation to be passed in.  ISTM,
> satisfies_hash_partition() that's called by hash partition constraint
> checking should have been changed to use FunctionCall2Coll() interface to
> account for the requirements of the above commit.  I see that it did that
> for compute_partition_hash_value(), which is used by hash partition tuple
> routing.  That also seems to be covered by regression tests, but there are
> no tests that cover satisfies_hash_partition().
> 
> Attached patch is an attempt to fix this.  I've also added Amul Sul who
> can maybe comment on the satisfies_hash_partition() changes.
> 

Yeah, that works here - apart from an issue with the test case; fixed in 
the attached.

Best regards,
  Jesper

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Status of the table access method work
Следующее
От: Konstantin Knizhnik
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization