On 2021-Apr-27, Amit Langote wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:34 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we may need a separate context for partdesc_nodetached, likely > with the same kludges as rd_pdcxt. Maybe the first problem will go > away with that as well. Ooh, seems I completely misunderstood what RelationClose was doing. I thought it was deleting the whole rd_pdcxt, *including* the "current" partdesc. But that's not at all what it does: it only deletes the *children* memcontexts, so the partdesc that is currently valid remains valid. I agree that your proposed fix appears to be promising, in that a separate "context tree" rd_pddcxt (?) can be used for this. I'll try it out now. > Few other minor things I noticed: > > + * Store it into relcache. For snapshots built excluding detached > + * partitions, which we save separately, we also record the > + * pg_inherits.xmin of the detached partition that was omitted; this > + * informs a future potential user of such a cached snapshot. > > The "snapshot" in the 1st and the last sentence should be "partdesc"? Doh, yeah. > + * We keep two partdescs in relcache: rd_partdesc_nodetached excludes > + * partitions marked concurrently being detached, while rd_partdesc includes > + * them. > > IMHO, describing rd_partdesc first in the sentence would be better. > Like: rd_partdesc includes all partitions including any that are being > concurrently detached, while rd_partdesc_nodetached excludes them. Makes sense. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
