Horton

RE: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better

Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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: 2021-05-17T09:18:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> 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

Thanks for the change, it looks good to me.

Best regards,
houzj

Commits

  1. Rework planning and execution of UPDATE and DELETE.

  2. Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.