Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZEwed3zp+CHOtekfHaf_880Njx2fq5nYUkOpL5D1GZ0Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> index 1c219b03dd..6a179596ce 100644
>> --- a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c
>> @@ -13297,8 +13297,10 @@ ATExecAttachPartition(List **wqueue, Relation rel, PartitionCmd *cmd)
>>               }
>>       }
>>
>> +     /* It's safe to skip the validation scan after all */
>>       if (skip_validate)
>> -             elog(NOTICE, "skipping scan to validate partition constraint");
>> +             ereport(INFO,
>> +                             (errmsg("skipping scan to validate partition constraint")));
>
> Why not just remove the message altogether?

That's certainly an option.  It might be noise in some situations.  On
the other hand, it affects whether attaching the partition is O(1) or
O(n), so somebody might well want to know.  Or maybe they might be
more likely to want a message in the reverse situation, telling them
that the partition constraint DOES need to be validated.  I'm not sure
what the best user interface is here; thoughts welcome.

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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes