Re: COLLATE: Hash partition vs UPDATE
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-04-09T12:58:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Amit, > > On 4/8/19 11:18 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > > As of this commit, hashing functions hashtext() and hashtextextended() > > require a valid collation to be passed in. ISTM, > > satisfies_hash_partition() that's called by hash partition constraint > > checking should have been changed to use FunctionCall2Coll() interface to > > account for the requirements of the above commit. I see that it did that > > for compute_partition_hash_value(), which is used by hash partition tuple > > routing. That also seems to be covered by regression tests, but there are > > no tests that cover satisfies_hash_partition(). > > > > Attached patch is an attempt to fix this. I've also added Amul Sul who > > can maybe comment on the satisfies_hash_partition() changes. > > > > Yeah, that works here - apart from an issue with the test case; fixed in > the attached. Ah, crap. Last minute changes are bad. Thanks for fixing. Thanks, Amit
Commits
-
Fix failure with textual partition hash keys.
- 4b40e44f07c7 12.0 landed
-
Collations with nondeterministic comparison
- 5e1963fb764e 12.0 cited