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
-
Fix failure with textual partition hash keys.
- 4b40e44f07c7 12.0 landed
-
Collations with nondeterministic comparison
- 5e1963fb764e 12.0 cited