Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jesper.pedersen@redhat.com
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, sulamul@gmail.com, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-04-14T20:50:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> writes:
> Yeah, that works here - apart from an issue with the test case; fixed in 
> the attached.

Couple issues spotted in an eyeball review of that:

* There is code that supposes that partsupfunc[] is the last
field of ColumnsHashData, eg

            fcinfo->flinfo->fn_extra =
                MemoryContextAllocZero(fcinfo->flinfo->fn_mcxt,
                                       offsetof(ColumnsHashData, partsupfunc) +
                                       sizeof(FmgrInfo) * nargs);

I'm a bit surprised that this patch manages to run without crashing,
because this would certainly not allocate space for partcollid[].

I think we would likely be well advised to do

-		FmgrInfo	partsupfunc[PARTITION_MAX_KEYS];
+		FmgrInfo	partsupfunc[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];

to make it more obvious that that has to be the last field.  Or else
drop the cuteness with variable-size allocations of ColumnsHashData.
FmgrInfo is only 48 bytes, I'm not really sure that it's worth the
risk of bugs to "optimize" this.

* I see collation-less calls of the partsupfunc at both partbounds.c:2931
and partbounds.c:2970, but this patch touches only the first one.  How
can that be right?

			regards, tom lane



Commits

  1. Fix failure with textual partition hash keys.

  2. Collations with nondeterministic comparison