Message-ID: <5AABADE2.3040805@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:43:30 +0900
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables
References: <3c3bbb2c-c28f-5b09-c124-b99e2231fe9b@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20180302153610.2yl4j2wmpw7mntge@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CABOikdNMqDsc9GFSvpAiWB5tm6sTTkAaozbwkRB2e2UqOQ8zsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABOikdNMqDsc9GFSvpAiWB5tm6sTTkAaozbwkRB2e2UqOQ8zsg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk

(2018/03/16 19:43), Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:

> @@ -106,6 +120,9 @@ typedef struct PartitionTupleRouting
>      int         num_subplan_partition_offsets;
>      TupleTableSlot *partition_tuple_slot;
>      TupleTableSlot *root_tuple_slot;
> +   List      **partition_arbiter_indexes;
> +   TupleTableSlot **partition_conflproj_slots;
> +   TupleTableSlot **partition_existing_slots;
>   } PartitionTupleRouting;

> I am curious why you decided to add these members to
> PartitionTupleRouting structure. Wouldn't ResultRelationInfo be a better
> place to track these or is there some rule that we follow?

I just started reviewing the patch, so maybe I'm missing something, but 
I think it would be a good idea to have these in that structure, not in 
ResultRelInfo, because these would be required only for partitions 
chosen via tuple routing.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita