Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take
On 2016/12/21 1:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Even if we decide to keep the message, I think it's not very good >>> wording anyhow; as a translator I disliked it on sight. Instead of >>> "skipping scan to validate" I would use "skipping validation scan", >>> except that it's not clear what it is we're validating. Mentioning >>> partition constraint in errcontext() doesn't like a great solution, but >>> I can't think of anything better. >> >> Maybe something like: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied >> by existing constraints > > Actually, shouldn't we emit a message if we *don't* skip the check? Scanning (aka, not skipping) to validate the partition constraint is the default behavior, so a user would be expecting it anyway, IOW, need not be informed of it. But when ATExecAttachPartition's efforts to avoid the scan by comparing the partition constraint against existing constraints (which the user most probably deliberately added just for this) succeed, that seems like a better piece of information to provide the user with, IMHO. But then again, having a message printed before a potentially long validation scan seems like something a user would like to see, to know what it is that is going to take so long. Hmm. Anyway, what would the opposite of Robert's suggested message look like: "scanning table \"%s\" to validate partition constraint"? Thanks, Amit
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2016/12/21 1:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Even if we decide to keep the message, I think it's not very good >>>> wording anyhow; as a translator I disliked it on sight. Instead of >>>> "skipping scan to validate" I would use "skipping validation scan", >>>> except that it's not clear what it is we're validating. Mentioning >>>> partition constraint in errcontext() doesn't like a great solution, but >>>> I can't think of anything better. >>> >>> Maybe something like: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied >>> by existing constraints >> >> Actually, shouldn't we emit a message if we *don't* skip the check? > > Scanning (aka, not skipping) to validate the partition constraint is the > default behavior, so a user would be expecting it anyway, IOW, need not be > informed of it. But when ATExecAttachPartition's efforts to avoid the > scan by comparing the partition constraint against existing constraints > (which the user most probably deliberately added just for this) succeed, > that seems like a better piece of information to provide the user with, > IMHO. But then again, having a message printed before a potentially long > validation scan seems like something a user would like to see, to know > what it is that is going to take so long. Hmm. > > Anyway, what would the opposite of Robert's suggested message look like: > "scanning table \"%s\" to validate partition constraint"? Maybe: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied by existing constraints -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2016/12/21 13:42, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Amit Langote > <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> On 2016/12/21 1:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Robert Haas wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>>> Even if we decide to keep the message, I think it's not very good >>>>> wording anyhow; as a translator I disliked it on sight. Instead of >>>>> "skipping scan to validate" I would use "skipping validation scan", >>>>> except that it's not clear what it is we're validating. Mentioning >>>>> partition constraint in errcontext() doesn't like a great solution, but >>>>> I can't think of anything better. >>>> >>>> Maybe something like: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied >>>> by existing constraints >>> >>> Actually, shouldn't we emit a message if we *don't* skip the check? >> >> Scanning (aka, not skipping) to validate the partition constraint is the >> default behavior, so a user would be expecting it anyway, IOW, need not be >> informed of it. But when ATExecAttachPartition's efforts to avoid the >> scan by comparing the partition constraint against existing constraints >> (which the user most probably deliberately added just for this) succeed, >> that seems like a better piece of information to provide the user with, >> IMHO. But then again, having a message printed before a potentially long >> validation scan seems like something a user would like to see, to know >> what it is that is going to take so long. Hmm. >> >> Anyway, what would the opposite of Robert's suggested message look like: >> "scanning table \"%s\" to validate partition constraint"? > > Maybe: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied by existing constraints OK, 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
On 2016/12/21 14:03, Amit Langote wrote: > OK, updated patch attached. Oops, incomplete patch that was. Complete patch attached this time. 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