> On May 8, 2026, at 07:47, Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:06 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <v10-0001-Fix-some-problems-with-UPDATE-FOR-PORTION-OF.patch><v10-0002-Fix-FOR-PORTION-OF-on-inherited-children-with-di.patch>
>>
>> A few comments for 0001:
>>
>> 1 - execUtils.c
>> The comment explicitly says that it is unsafe to mutate perminfo, but
>> bms_add_member() does not always allocate a new bitmapset. So if updatedCols
>> still points to perminfo->updatedCols, then bms_add_member() may mutate
>> perminfo->updatedCols.
>>
>> To verify that, I added Assert(updatedCols != perminfo->updatedCols); right
>> after the bms_add_member(), then ran "make check". A lot of tests failed,
>> which seems to confirm that perminfo->updatedCols was being mutated.
>>
>> So, I think we should make a copy the bitmapset before bms_add_member when
>> needed, to make sure perminfo is not mutated, something like:
>> ```
>> if (updatedCols == perminfo->updatedCols)
>> updatedCols = bms_copy(updatedCols);
>>
>> updatedCols =
>> bms_add_member(updatedCols,
>> rangeAttno -
>> FirstLowInvalidHeapAttributeNumber);
>> ```
>
> Ah, thanks for catching this! Fixed.
>
>> 2 - execUtils.c
>> ```
>> + * because the user does not need UPDATE permission on it. Now manualy
>> ```
>>
>> Typo: manualy -> manually
>
> Fixed.
>
>> 3 - nodeModifyTable.c
>> ```
>> + /*
>> + * If we don't have a ForPortionOfState yet, we must be a
>> partition
>> + * child being hit for the first time. Make a copy from the
>> root, with
>> + * our own TupleTableSlot. We do this lazily so that we
>> don't pay the
>> + * price of unused partitions.
>> + */
>> + if ((((ModifyTable *)
>> context.mtstate->ps.plan)->forPortionOf) &&
>> + !resultRelInfo->ri_forPortionOf)
>> + {
>> + ExecInitForPortionOf(context.mtstate, estate,
>> resultRelInfo);
>> + }
>> ```
>>
>> I think this comment is stale. It could be a partition child or an
>> inheritance child.
>
> Okay.
>
>> 4 - nodeModifyTable.c
>> ```
>> + /* Each partition needs a slot matching its tuple descriptor */
>> + leafState->fp_Existing =
>> + table_slot_create(resultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc,
>> +
>> &mtstate->ps.state->es_tupleTable);
>> ```
>>
>> I think the comment should say "each child relation" rather than "each
>> partition".
>
> Okay.
>
> In these v11 patches I've tried to separate (1) the fix for GENERATED
> STORED columns and UPDATE OF triggers (2) fixing inheritance and (and
> partitions too, for the bugs in #1). I understand why jian he combined
> these into one patch: there is some overlap. If you don't like my
> separation, let me know.
>
> Yours,
>
> --
> Paul ~{:-)
> [email protected]
> <v11-0001-Fix-FOR-PORTION-OF-column-dependency-tracking.patch><v11-0002-Fix-FOR-PORTION-OF-with-partitions-and-inheritan.patch>
Thanks for updating the patch and making the separation. After reading v11, I
still have a few comments for 0001.
```
+ if (relinfo->ri_forPortionOf)
+ {
+ AttrNumber rangeAttno =
relinfo->ri_forPortionOf->fp_rangeAttno;
+
+ if (!bms_is_member(rangeAttno -
FirstLowInvalidHeapAttributeNumber,
+ updatedCols))
+ {
+ MemoryContext oldContext;
+
+ oldContext =
MemoryContextSwitchTo(estate->es_query_cxt);
+
+ updatedCols = bms_copy(updatedCols);
+ updatedCols =
+ bms_add_member(updatedCols,
+ rangeAttno -
FirstLowInvalidHeapAttributeNumber);
+
+ MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldContext);
+ }
}
```
1. I don’t think we should unconditionally do bms_copy, only if (updatedCols ==
perminfo->updatedCols), we need to make the copy.
2. I doubt if we need to switch to estate->es_query_cxt. Because
ExecGetUpdatedCols() is called by ExecGetAllUpdatedCols(), and its header
comment says the function runs in per-tuple memory context:
```
/*
* Return columns being updated, including generated columns
*
* The bitmap is allocated in per-tuple memory context. It's up to the caller to
* copy it into a different context with the appropriate lifespan, if needed.
*/
Bitmapset *
ExecGetAllUpdatedCols(ResultRelInfo *relinfo, EState *estate)
```
So I think bms_copy and bms_add_member should be just done in the current
memory context.
3. "rangeAttno - FirstLowInvalidHeapAttributeNumber” appears twice, maybe add a
local variable to avoid the duplication.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
