Horton

Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2021-05-17T06:32:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Hi,

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:07 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> After 86dc900, In " src/include/nodes/pathnodes.h ",
> I noticed that it uses the word " partitioned UPDATE " in the comment above struct RowIdentityVarInfo.
>
> But, it seems " inherited UPDATE " is used in the rest of places.
> Is it better to keep them consistent by using " inherited UPDATE " ?

Yeah, I would not be opposed to fixing that.  Like this maybe (patch attached)?

- * In partitioned UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child partitions to share
+ * In an inherited UPDATE/DELETE it's important for child tables to share

While at it, I also noticed that the comment refers to the
row_identity_vars, but it can be unclear which variable it is
referring to.  So fixed that too.

-- 
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Rework planning and execution of UPDATE and DELETE.

  2. Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.