On 26 June 2017 at 08:37, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 June 2017 at 01:41, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Second, it will amount to a functional bug if you get a
>>>> different answer than the planner did.
>>> Actually, the per-leaf WCOs are meant to be executed on the
>>> destination partitions where the tuple is moved, while the WCOs
>>> belonging to the per-subplan resultRelInfo are meant for the
>>> resultRelinfo used for the UPDATE plans. So actually it should not
>>> matter whether they look same or different, because they are fired at
>>> different objects. Now these objects can happen to be the same
>>> relations though.
>>> But in any case, it's not clear to me how the mapped WCO and the
>>> planner's WCO would yield a different answer if they are both the same
>>> relation. I am possibly missing something. The planner has already
>>> generated the withCheckOptions for each of the resultRelInfo. And then
>>> we are using one of those to re-generate the WCO for a leaf partition
>>> by only adjusting the attnos. If there is already a WCO generated in
>>> the planner for that leaf partition (because that partition was
>>> present in mtstate->resultRelInfo), then the re-built WCO should be
>>> exactly look same as the earlier one, because they are the same
>>> relations, and so the attnos generated in them would be same since the
>>> Relation TupleDesc is the same.
>> If the planner's WCOs and mapped WCOs are always the same, then I
>> think we should try to avoid generating both.  If they can be
>> different, but that's intentional and correct, then there's no
>> substantive problem with the patch but the comments need to make it
>> clear why we are generating both.
>>> Actually I meant, "above works for only local updates. For
>>> row-movement-updates, we need per-leaf partition WCOs, because when
>>> the row is inserted into target partition, that partition may be not
>>> be included in the above planner resultRelInfo, so we need WCOs for
>>> all partitions". I think this said comment should be sufficient if I
>>> add this in the code ?
>> Let's not get too focused on updating the comment until we are in
>> agreement about what the code ought to be doing.  I'm not clear
>> whether you accept the point that the patch needs to be changed to
>> avoid generating the same WCOs and returning lists in both the planner
>> and the executor.
> Yes, we can re-use the WCOs generated in the planner, as an
> optimization, since those we re-generate for the same relations will
> look exactly the same. The WCOs generated by planner (in
> inheritance_planner) are generated when (in adjust_appendrel_attrs())
> we change attnos used in the query to refer to the child RTEs and this
> adjusts the attnos of the WCOs of the child RTEs. So the WCOs of
> subplan resultRelInfo are actually the parent table WCOs, but only the
> attnos changed. And in ExecInitModifyTable() we do the same thing for
> leaf partitions, although using different function
> map_variable_attnos().

In attached patch v12,  during UPDATE tuple routing setup, for each
leaf partition, we now check if it is present already in one of the
UPDATE per-subplan resultrels. If present, we re-use them rather than
creating a new one and opening the table again.

So the mtstate->mt_partitions is now an array of ResultRelInfo
pointers. That pointer points to either the UPDATE per-subplan result
rel, or a newly allocated ResultRelInfo.

For each of the leaf partitions, we have to search through the
per-subplan resultRelInfo oids to check if there is a match. To do
this, I have created a temporary hash table which stores oids and the
ResultRelInfo pointers of mtstate->resultRelInfo array, and which can
be used to search the oid for each of the leaf partitions.

This patch version has handled only the above discussion point. I will
follow up with the other points separately.

Attachment: update-partition-key_v12.patch
Description: Binary data

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

Reply via email to