On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Attached patches with the comments addressed.

I have committed 0001-0003 as 480f1f4329f1bf8bfbbcda8ed233851e1b110ad4
and e139f1953f29db245f60a7acb72fccb1e05d2442.

0004 doesn't apply any more, probably due to commit
d57929afc7063431f80a0ac4c510fc39aacd22e6.  I think something along
these lines could be separately committed prior to the main patch, and
I think that would be a good idea just to flush out any bugs in this
part independently of the rest.  However, I also think that we
probably ought to try to get Amit Langote's changes to this function
to repair the locking order and expand in bound order committed before
proceeding with these changes.

In fact, I think there's a certain amount of conflict between what's
being discussed over there and what you're trying to do here.  In that
thread, we propose to move partitioned tables at any level to the
front of the inheritance expansion.  Here, however, you want to expand
level by level.  I think partitioned-tables-first is the right
approach for the reasons discussed on the other thread; namely, we
want to be able to prune leaf partitions before expanding them, but
that requires us to expand all the non-leaf tables first to maintain a
consistent locking order in all scenarios.  So the approach you've
taken in this patch may need to be re-thought somewhat.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to