Horton

Re: UPDATE of partition key

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-02-24T07:48:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Friday, February 24, 2017, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I am inclined to at least have some option for the user to decide the
> > behaviour. In the future we can even consider support for walking
> > through the ctid chain across multiple relfilenodes. But till then, we
> > need to decide what default behaviour to keep. My inclination is more
> > towards erroring out in an unfortunate even where there is an UPDATE
> > while the row-movement is happening. One option is to not get into
> > finding whether the DELETE was part of partition row-movement or it
> > was indeed a DELETE, and always error out the UPDATE when
> > heap_update() returns HeapTupleUpdated, but only if the table is a
> > leaf partition. But this obviously will cause annoyance because of
> > chances of getting such errors when there are concurrent updates and
> > deletes in the same partition. But we can keep a table-level option
> > for determining whether to error out or silently lose the UPDATE.
>
> I'm still a fan of the "do nothing and just document that this is a
> weirdness of partitioned tables" approach, because implementing
> something will be complicated, will ensure that this misses this
> release if not the next one, and may not be any better for users.  But
> probably we need to get some more opinions from other people, since I
> can imagine people being pretty unhappy if the consensus happens to be
> at odds with my own preferences.
>
>
For my own sanity - the move update would complete successfully and break
every ctid chain that it touches.  Any update lined up behind it in the
lock queue would discover their target record has been deleted and
would experience whatever behavior their isolation level dictates for such
a situation.  So multi-partition update queries will fail to update some
records if they happen to move between partitions even if they would
otherwise match the query's predicate.

Is there any difference in behavior between this and a SQL writeable CTE
performing the same thing via delete-returning-insert?

David J.

Commits

  1. Avoid referencing off the end of subplan_partition_offsets.

  2. Allow UPDATE to move rows between partitions.

  3. Remove useless lookup of root partitioned rel in ExecInitModifyTable().

  4. Factor error generation out of ExecPartitionCheck.

  5. Minor preparatory refactoring for UPDATE row movement.

  6. Simplify and encapsulate tuple routing support code.

  7. Avoid coercing a whole-row variable that is already coerced.

  8. Use ResultRelInfo ** rather than ResultRelInfo * for tuple routing.

  9. Make RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo expand depth-first.

  10. Expand partitioned tables in PartDesc order.

  11. Use a real RT index when setting up partition tuple routing.

  12. Fix transition tables for partition/inheritance.

  13. Fix confusion about number of subplans in partitioned INSERT setup.

  14. Prevent BEFORE triggers from violating partitioning constraints.

  15. Fire per-statement triggers on partitioned tables.

  16. Fix reporting of violations in ExecConstraints, again.

  17. Don't scan partitioned tables.

  18. Allow FDWs to push down quals without breaking EvalPlanQual rechecks.