From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZxXR3k=3V2UsQN2EV3VQ455oFJK1+zAn8AzzbO+P9sPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10788.1552501588@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYd3vqd26RiT4sp7Mez3oQf-AxAzdBpEeTyCNF-7OchhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY71GwY8WhQKBH+7yexyZEw6WDbFBtj2E3EDszc0LnSqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3969.1552581380@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYg2NY3KTUFiuaCxDkW8iXD3o3H3wdXs6m-o-dGiYHD_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6122.1552673884@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYMoUDQH7kGqbEUDBJkcr-G_Di6pu04uL6UPexgcodF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <10797.1552679128@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190501155912.dgp6sg4vwueewd5l@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+Tgmob-cska+-WUC7T-G4zkSJp7yum6M_bzYd4YFzwQ51qiow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190517195929.uey6hadbgazplm3h@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <7897.1558125372@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZjwB2kRvDz56PWDjApy5Jkt5SEywwYUn9uSQP2hAd+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqEwrP0TettuL5bbwGH_hu3L=5am9pajy7FmASQYDBq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqGZSJS+gB_6EdffMUxPuyJ-H8j9-HFiCWNR9+=Khi0qvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZxXR3k=3V2UsQN2EV3VQ455oFJK1+zAn8AzzbO+P9sPg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 07 Jun 2019 08:51:56 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18285.1560275836.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:57:16 -0400
Message-ID: <18286.1560275836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:48 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that applies on top of Robert's pdoldcxt-v1.patch,
>> which seems to fix this issue for me.

> Yeah, that looks right.  I think my patch was full of fuzzy thinking
> and inadequate testing; thanks for checking it over and coming up with
> the right solution.

> Anyone else want to look/comment?

I think the existing code is horribly ugly and this is even worse.
It adds cycles to RelationDecrementReferenceCount which is a hotspot
that has no business dealing with this; the invariants are unclear;
and there's no strong reason to think there aren't still cases where
we accumulate lots of copies of old partition descriptors during a
sequence of operations.  Basically you're just doubling down on a
wrong design.

As I said upthread, my current inclination is to do nothing in this
area for v12 and then try to replace the whole thing with proper
reference counting in v13.  I think the cases where we have a major
leak are corner-case-ish enough that we can leave it as-is for one
release.

			regards, tom lane