From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:32:03 -0300
Message-ID: <20190228193203.GA26151@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190228014549.GD1617@paquier.xyz>
On 2019-Feb-28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:48:08PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I just happened to come across the result of this rationale in
> > pg_partition_tree() (an SRF) while developing a new related function,
> > pg_partition_ancestors(), and find the resulting behavior rather absurd
> > -- it returns one row with all NULL columns, rather than no rows. I
> > think the sensible behavior would be to do SRF_RETURN_DONE() before
> > stashing any rows to the output, so that we get an empty result set
> > instead.
>
> Hmm. Going through the thread again NULL was decided to make the
> whole experience consistent, now by returning nothing we would get
> a behavior as consistent as when NULL is used in input, so point taken
> to tune the behavior for unsupported relkinds and undefined objects.
Right, thanks.
> Does the attached look fine to you?
Yeah, looks good, please push.
What about legacy inheritance? I see that pg_partition_tree handles
that case perfectly well -- it seems to return the complete hierarchy
rooted at the given relation. However, it seems odd that it works at
all, don't you think? Consider this:
create table t1 (a int);
create table t11 () inherits (t1);
create table t2 (b int);
create table t111() inherits (t1, t2);
alvherre=# select * from pg_partition_tree('t1');
relid | parentrelid | isleaf | level
-------+-------------+--------+-------
t1 | t | t | 0
t11 | t1 | t | 1
t111 | t1 | t | 1
(3 filas)
OK so far... but look at t2's tree:
alvherre=# select * from pg_partition_tree('t2');
relid | parentrelid | isleaf | level
-------+-------------+--------+-------
t2 | t | t | 0
t111 | t1 | t | 2
I think this one is just weird -- t1 is not listed as "relid" anywhere,
and why does t111 has level=2?
I would opt for returning the empty set for legacy inheritance too.
More generally, I think we should return empty for anything that's
either not RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE or has relispartition set.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation
In-Reply-To: <20190228193203.GA26151@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox