Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take

On 2017/01/06 20:23, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/01/05 3:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's unclear to me why we need to do 0002.  It doesn't seem like it
>> should be necessary, it doesn't seem like a good idea, and the commit
>> message you proposed is uninformative.
>
> If a single BulkInsertState object is passed to
> heap_insert()/heap_multi_insert() for different heaps corresponding to
> different partitions (from one input tuple to next), tuples might end up
> going into wrong heaps (like demonstrated in one of the reports [1]).  A
> simple solution is to disable bulk-insert in case of partitioned tables.
>
> But my patch (or its motivations) was slightly wrongheaded, wherein I
> conflated multi-insert stuff and bulk-insert considerations.  I revised
> 0002 to not do that.

Ragnar Ouchterlony pointed out [1] on pgsql-bugs that 0002 wasn't correct.
Attaching updated 0002 along with rebased 0001 and 0003.

Thanks,
Amit

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/732dfc84-25f5-413c-1eee-0bfa7a370093%40agama.tv

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers