Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYC_kEoisUiTKYPsxUNP9mjJ8L7_Rg7O8nJGOCDNHvjpQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, OK.  That case never happens today?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: 'Andres Freund'
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - didsomething change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Notes on testing Postgres 10b1