On 2017/05/17 11:22, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm about to post a much simpler patch that collects uniform tuples
>>> from children, addressing the reported bug, and simply rejects
>>> transition tables on row-triggers on tables that are in either kind of
>>> inheritance hierarchy. More soon...
>>
>> I agree that we can safely go that far, but not farther. Thanks!
>
> Here is that patch. Thoughts?
I looked at the patch and noticed that there might be some confusion about
what's in the EState.es_root_result_relations array.
If you see the following block of code in ExecInitModifyTable():
/* If modifying a partitioned table, initialize the root table info */
if (node->rootResultRelIndex >= 0)
mtstate->rootResultRelInfo = estate->es_root_result_relations +
node->rootResultRelIndex;
You might be able to see that node->rootResultRelIndex is used as offset
into es_root_result_relations, which means the partitioned table root
being modified by this node. The entries in es_root_result_relations
correspond to the partitioned table roots referenced as targets in
different parts of the query (for example, a WITH query might have its own
target partitioned tables).
So, in ExecSetupTriggerTransitionState() added by the patch, the following
code needs to be changed:
/*
* Find the ResultRelInfo corresponding to the relation that was
* explicitly named in the statement.
*/
if (estate->es_num_root_result_relations > 0)
{
/* Partitioned table. The named relation is the first root. */
targetRelInfo = &estate->es_root_result_relations[0];
}
targetRelInfo should instead be set to mtstate->rootResultRelInfo that was
set in ExecInitModifyTable() as described above, IOW, as follows:
/* Partitioned table. */
if (mtstate->rootResultRelInfo != NULL)
targetRelInfo = mtstate->rootResultRelInfo;
I guess that's what you intend to do here.
Sorry if the comments that I wrote about es_root_result_relations in what
got committed as e180c8aa8c were not clear enough.
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
