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

  1. Fix failure with textual partition hash keys.

  2. Collations with nondeterministic comparison