Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Adjust errcode in checkPartition()
- d51a5d8e5692 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix usage of palloc() in MERGE/SPLIT PARTITION(s) code
- c5ae07a90a0f 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Implement ALTER TABLE ... SPLIT PARTITION ... command
- 4b3d173629f4 19 (unreleased) landed
- 87c21bb9412c 17.0 landed
-
Implement ALTER TABLE ... MERGE PARTITIONS ... command
- f2e4cc427951 19 (unreleased) landed
- 1adf16b8fba4 17.0 landed
-
Calculate agglevelsup correctly when Aggref contains a CTE.
- b0cc0a71e0a0 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Use PqMsg_* macros in applyparallelworker.c.
- 989b2e4d5c95 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Restrict psql meta-commands in plain-text dumps.
- 71ea0d679543 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Ensure we have a snapshot when updating various system catalogs.
- 706054b11b95 18.0 cited
-
Use specific collation where needed in new test
- 17bcf4f54504 18.0 cited
-
Expand virtual generated columns in the planner
- 1e4351af329f 18.0 cited
-
Virtual generated columns
- 83ea6c54025b 18.0 cited
-
Define PG_LOGICAL_DIR for path pg_logical/ in data folder
- c39afc38cfec 18.0 cited
-
Revert support for ALTER TABLE ... MERGE/SPLIT PARTITION(S) commands
- 84f594da3588 17.0 landed
- 3890d90c1508 18.0 landed
-
Avoid repeated table name lookups in createPartitionTable()
- f636ab41aba2 17.0 landed
- 04158e7fa37c 18.0 landed
-
Provide deterministic order for catalog queries in partition_split.sql
- d53a4286d772 17.0 landed
-
Don't copy extended statistics during MERGE/SPLIT partition operations
- fbd4321fd5b4 17.0 landed
-
Fix the name collision detection in MERGE/SPLIT partition operations
- 3a82c689fd1b 17.0 landed
-
Fix regression tests conflict in 3ca43dbbb6
- 2a679ae94e46 17.0 landed
-
Add permission check for MERGE/SPLIT partition operations
- 3ca43dbbb67f 17.0 landed
-
Fix one more portability shortcoming in new test_pg_dump test.
- d12b4ba1bd3e 17.0 cited
-
Inherit parent's AM for partition MERGE/SPLIT operations
- 259c96fa8f78 17.0 landed
-
Add tab completion for partition MERGE/SPLIT operations
- 60ae37a8bc02 17.0 landed
-
Rename tables in tests of partition MERGE/SPLIT operations
- f4fc7cb54b6a 17.0 landed
-
Make new partitions with parent's persistence during MERGE/SPLIT
- fcf80c5d5f0f 17.0 landed
-
Document the way partition MERGE/SPLIT operations create new partitions
- 842c9b27057e 17.0 landed
-
Change the way ATExecMergePartitions() handles the name collision
- 885742b9f88b 17.0 landed
-
Grammar fixes for split/merge partitions code
- 9dfcac8e15ac 17.0 landed
-
Checks for ALTER TABLE ... SPLIT/MERGE PARTITIONS ... commands
- c99ef1811a06 17.0 landed
-
Fix some grammer errors from error messages and codes comments
- df64c81ca9cb 17.0 landed
-
Support TZ and OF format codes in to_timestamp().
- 8ba6fdf905d0 17.0 cited
-
Support identity columns in partitioned tables
- 699586315704 17.0 cited
-
Fix indentation in twophase.c
- 4e465aac36ce 17.0 cited
-
Fix corner-case planner failure for MERGE.
- 326a33a289c7 16.0 cited
-
Doc: fix documentation example for bytea hex output format.
- 4f46f870fa56 16.0 cited
-
Avoid repeated name lookups during table and index DDL.
- 5f173040e324 9.4.0 cited
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:35 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > The revised patchset is attached. > 1) I've split the fix for the CommandCounterIncrement() issue and the > fix for relation persistence issue into a separate patch. > 2) I've validated that the lock on the new partition is held in > createPartitionTable() after ProcessUtility() as pointed out by > Robert. So, no need to place the lock again. > 3) Added fix for problematic error message as a separate patch [1]. > 4) Added rename "salemans" => "salesmen" for tests as a separate patch. > > I think these fixes are reaching committable shape, but I'd like > someone to check it before I push. Reviewing 0001: - Seems mostly fine. I think the comment /* Unlock and drop merged partitions. */ is wrong. I think it should say something like /* Drop the current partitions before adding the new one. */ because (a) it doesn't unlock anything, and there's another comment saying that and (b) we now know that the drop vs. add order matters. Reviewing 0002: - Commit message typos: behavious, corresponsing - Given the change to the header comment of createPartitionTable, it's rather surprising to me that this patch doesn't touch the documentation. Isn't that a big change in semantics? - My previous review comment was really about the code comment, I believe, rather than the use of AccessExclusiveLock. NoLock is probably fine, but if it were me I'd be tempted to write AccessExclusiveLock and just make the comment say something like /* We should already have the lock, but do it this way just to be certain */. But what you have is probably fine, too. Mostly, I want to clarify the intent of my previous comment. - Do we, or can we, have a test that if you split a partition that's not in the search path, the resulting partitions end up in your creation namespace? And similarly for merge? And maybe also that schema-qualification works properly? I haven't exhaustively verified the patch, but these are some things I noticed when scrolling through it. Reviewing 0003: - Are you sure this can't dereference datum when datum is NULL, in either the upper or lower half? It sure looks strange to have code that looks like it can make datum a null pointer, and then an unconditional deference just after. - In general I think the wording changes are improvements. I'm slightly suspicious that there might be an even better way to word it, but I can't think of it right at this very moment. - I'm kind of unhappy (but not totally unhappy) with the semantics. Suppose I have a partition that allows values from 0 to 1000, but actually only contains values that are either between 0 and 99 or between 901 and 1000. If I try to to split the partition into one that allows 0..100 and a second that allows 900..1000, it will fail. Maybe that's good, because that means that if a failure is going to happen, it will happen right at the beginning, rather than maybe after doing a lot of work. But on the other hand, it also kind of stinks, because it feels like I'm being told I can't do something that I know is perfectly fine. Reviewing 0004: - Obviously this is quite trivial and there's no real problem with it, but if we're changing it anyway, how about a gender-neutral term (salesperson/salespeople)? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com