Re: [HACKERS] fix side-effect in get_qual_for_list()
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeevan Ladhe writes: > > I have rebased the patch on recent commit. > > Pushed with some further tweaking. > Thanks Tom for taking care of this. Regards, Jeevan Ladhe
Re: [HACKERS] fix side-effect in get_qual_for_list()
Jeevan Ladhe writes: > I have rebased the patch on recent commit. Pushed with some further tweaking. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fix side-effect in get_qual_for_list()
Hi, I have rebased the patch on recent commit. With recent commits, some of the hunks in the v2 patch related to castNode, are not needed. PFA. Regards, Jeevan Ladhe On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Hi Ashutosh, > > Thanks for catching this. For now this isn't a problem since >> generate_partition_qual() is crafting PartitionBoundInfo which it >> doesn't use anywhere else. But if the function gets used where the >> PartitionBoundSpec is being used somewhere else as well. > > > Yes, this behavior currently does not affect adversely, but I think this > function is quite useful for future enhancements and should be fixed. > > While you are >> at it, can we use castNode() in place of >> PartitionBoundSpec *spec = (PartitionBoundSpec *) bound; Or do you >> think it should be done separately? >> > > I have made this change at couple of places applicable. > > PFA. > > Regards, > Jeevan Ladhe > fix_listdatums_get_qual_for_list_v3.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fix side-effect in get_qual_for_list()
Hi Ashutosh, Thanks for catching this. For now this isn't a problem since > generate_partition_qual() is crafting PartitionBoundInfo which it > doesn't use anywhere else. But if the function gets used where the > PartitionBoundSpec is being used somewhere else as well. Yes, this behavior currently does not affect adversely, but I think this function is quite useful for future enhancements and should be fixed. While you are > at it, can we use castNode() in place of > PartitionBoundSpec *spec = (PartitionBoundSpec *) bound; Or do you > think it should be done separately? > I have made this change at couple of places applicable. PFA. Regards, Jeevan Ladhe fix_listdatums_get_qual_for_list_v2.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fix side-effect in get_qual_for_list()
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Jeevan Ladhe wrote: > Hi, > > While working on one of the crash reported on default partition for list > partitioning table[1] I found some strange behavior in get_qual_for_list() > while > I tried to call it from the new code I wrote for default partition. > > After debugging, I noticed that the function get_qual_for_list() is > implicitly > manipulating the (PartitionBoundSpec) spec->listdatums list. AFAICU, this > manipulation is needed just to construct a list of datums to be passed to > ArrayExpr, and this should be done without manipulating the original list. > The function name is get_qual_for_list(), which implies that this function > returns something and does not modify anything. > > I have made this change in attached patch, as I think this is useful for > future > developments, as there may be a need in future to call get_qual_for_list() > from > other places, and the caller might not expect that PartitionBoundSpec gets > modified. > Thanks for catching this. For now this isn't a problem since generate_partition_qual() is crafting PartitionBoundInfo which it doesn't use anywhere else. But if the function gets used where the PartitionBoundSpec is being used somewhere else as well. While you are at it, can we use castNode() in place of PartitionBoundSpec *spec = (PartitionBoundSpec *) bound; Or do you think it should be done separately? -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers