On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:58 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:18 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:07 AM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > [...] >> Few comments: >> > Thanks for looking at the patch, please find my comments inline: > >> 1. >> @@ -1480,6 +1493,10 @@ ExecOnConflictUpdate(ModifyTableState *mtstate, >> ereport(ERROR, >> (errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE), >> errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update"))); >> + if (!BlockNumberIsValid(BlockIdGetBlockNumber(&((hufd.ctid).ip_blkid)))) >> + ereport(ERROR, >> + (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), >> + errmsg("tuple to be updated was already moved to an another >> partition due to concurrent update"))); >> >> Why do you think we need this check in the OnConflictUpdate path? I >> think we don't it here because we are going to relinquish this version >> of the tuple and will start again and might fetch some other row >> version. Also, we don't support Insert .. On Conflict Update with >> partitioned tables, see[1], which is also an indication that at the >> very least we don't need it now. >> > Agreed, even though this case will never going to be anytime soon > shouldn't we have a check for invalid block id? IMHO, we should have > this check and error report or assert, thoughts? >
I feel adding code which can't be hit (even if it is error handling) is not a good idea. I think having an Assert should be okay, but please write comments to explain the reason for adding an Assert. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com