Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Before that, though, I remain concerned that the PartitionPruneInfo
>> data structure the planner is transmitting to the executor is unsafe
>> against concurrent ATTACH PARTITION operations. The comment for
>> PartitionedRelPruneInfo says in so many words that it's relying on
>> indexes in the table's PartitionDesc; how is that not broken by
>> 898e5e329?
> The only problem with PartitionPruneInfo structures of which I am
> aware is that they rely on PartitionDesc offsets not changing. But I
> added code in that commit in ExecCreatePartitionPruneState to handle
> that exact problem. See also paragraph 5 of the commit message, which
> begins with "Although in general..."
Ah. Grotty, but I guess it will cover the issue.
regards, tom lane
