Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Centralize executor-related partitioning code.

  1. moving some partitioning code to executor

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2017-09-14T07:13:46Z

    Hi.

It seems to me that some of the code in partition.c is better placed
somewhere under the executor directory.  There was even a suggestion
recently [1] to introduce a execPartition.c to house some code around
tuple-routing.

IMO, catalog/partition.c should present an interface for handling
operations on a *single* partitioned table and avoid pretending to support
any operations on the whole partition tree.  For example, the
PartitionDispatch structure embeds some knowledge about the partition tree
it's part of, which is useful when used for tuple-routing, because of the
way it works now (lock and form ResultRelInfos of *all* leaf partitions
before the first input row is processed).

So, let's move that structure, along with the code that creates and
manipulates the same, out of partition.c/h and to execPartition.c/h.
Attached patch attempts to do that.

While doing the same, I didn't move *all* of get_partition_for_tuple() out
to execPartition.c, instead modified its signature as shown below:

-extern int get_partition_for_tuple(PartitionDispatch *pd,
-                        TupleTableSlot *slot,
-                        EState *estate,
-                        PartitionDispatchData **failed_at,
-                        TupleTableSlot **failed_slot);
+extern int get_partition_for_tuple(Relation relation, Datum *values,
+                            bool *isnull);

That way, we keep the core partition bound comparison logic inside
partition.c and move rest of the stuff to its caller ExecFindPartition(),
which includes navigating the enveloping PartitionDispatch's.

Thoughts?

PS: 0001 of the attached is the patch from [2] which is here to be applied
on HEAD before applying the main patch (0002) itself

Thanks,
Amit

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoafr%3DhUrM%3Dcbx-k%3DBDHOF2OfXa
w95HQSNAK4mHBwmSjtw%40mail.gmail.com

[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7fe0007b-7ad1-a593-df11-ad05364ebce4%40l
ab.ntt.co.jp

  2. Re: moving some partitioning code to executor

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2017-09-14T07:19:25Z

    Repeating links for better accessibility:

On 2017/09/14 16:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> [1]

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoafr%3DhUrM%3Dcbx-k%3DBDHOF2OfXaw95HQSNAK4mHBwmSjtw%40mail.gmail.com

> [2]

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7fe0007b-7ad1-a593-df11-ad05364ebce4%40lab.ntt.co.jp

Thanks,
Amit

  3. Re: moving some partitioning code to executor

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2017-09-26T04:42:26Z

    On 2017/09/14 16:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> It seems to me that some of the code in partition.c is better placed
> somewhere under the executor directory.  There was even a suggestion
> recently [1] to introduce a execPartition.c to house some code around
> tuple-routing.
> 
> IMO, catalog/partition.c should present an interface for handling
> operations on a *single* partitioned table and avoid pretending to support
> any operations on the whole partition tree.  For example, the
> PartitionDispatch structure embeds some knowledge about the partition tree
> it's part of, which is useful when used for tuple-routing, because of the
> way it works now (lock and form ResultRelInfos of *all* leaf partitions
> before the first input row is processed).
> 
> So, let's move that structure, along with the code that creates and
> manipulates the same, out of partition.c/h and to execPartition.c/h.
> Attached patch attempts to do that.
> 
> While doing the same, I didn't move *all* of get_partition_for_tuple() out
> to execPartition.c, instead modified its signature as shown below:
> 
> -extern int get_partition_for_tuple(PartitionDispatch *pd,
> -                        TupleTableSlot *slot,
> -                        EState *estate,
> -                        PartitionDispatchData **failed_at,
> -                        TupleTableSlot **failed_slot);
> +extern int get_partition_for_tuple(Relation relation, Datum *values,
> +                            bool *isnull);
> 
> That way, we keep the core partition bound comparison logic inside
> partition.c and move rest of the stuff to its caller ExecFindPartition(),
> which includes navigating the enveloping PartitionDispatch's.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> PS: 0001 of the attached is the patch from [2] which is here to be applied
> on HEAD before applying the main patch (0002) itself

Since that 0001 patch was committed [1], here is the rebased patch.  Will
add this to the November commit-fest.

Thanks,
Amit

[1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=77b6b5e9c

  4. Re: [HACKERS] moving some partitioning code to executor

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2017-11-14T17:09:44Z

    Amit Langote wrote:

> Since that 0001 patch was committed [1], here is the rebased patch.  Will
> add this to the November commit-fest.

Please rebase once more -- 1aba8e651ac3 seems to have broken things
in this area pretty thoroughly.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  5. Re: [HACKERS] moving some partitioning code to executor

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2017-11-15T00:59:06Z

    On 2017/11/15 2:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
> 
>> Since that 0001 patch was committed [1], here is the rebased patch.  Will
>> add this to the November commit-fest.
> 
> Please rebase once more -- 1aba8e651ac3 seems to have broken things
> in this area pretty thoroughly.

Thanks, done.

Regards,
Amit

  6. Re: [HACKERS] moving some partitioning code to executor

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2017-11-15T15:29:03Z

    On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/11/15 2:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>>> Since that 0001 patch was committed [1], here is the rebased patch.  Will
>>> add this to the November commit-fest.
>>
>> Please rebase once more -- 1aba8e651ac3 seems to have broken things
>> in this area pretty thoroughly.
>
> Thanks, done.

Committed.

(Alvaro, hope that's not stepping your toes ...)

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

  7. Re: [HACKERS] moving some partitioning code to executor

    Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> — 2017-11-16T02:21:05Z

    On 2017/11/16 0:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/11/15 2:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Amit Langote wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since that 0001 patch was committed [1], here is the rebased patch.  Will
>>>> add this to the November commit-fest.
>>>
>>> Please rebase once more -- 1aba8e651ac3 seems to have broken things
>>> in this area pretty thoroughly.
>>
>> Thanks, done.
> 
> Committed.

Thank you.

Regards,
Amit