On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:07 AM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:24 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:07 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Also, in > > > > standard_planner, we should add these partitionOids only for > > > > parallel-mode. > > > > > > > > > > It is doing that in v20 patch (what makes you think it isn't?). > > > > > > > The below code snippet: > > + /* For AcquireExecutorLocks(). */ > > + if (IsModifySupportedInParallelMode(parse->commandType)) > > + result->partitionOids = glob->partitionOids; > > > > I understand that you have a check for the parallel mode in > > AcquireExecutorLocks but why can't we have it before adding that to > > planned statement > > > > OK, I think I'm on the same wavelength now (sorry, I didn't realise > you're talking about PlannedStmt). > > What I believe you're suggesting is in the planner where > partitionOids are "added" to the returned PlannedStmt, they should > only be added if glob->parallelModeNeeded is true:. > > i.e. > > /* For AcquireExecutorLocks(). */ > if (glob->partitionOids != NIL && glob->parallelModeNeeded) > result->partitionOids = glob->partitionOids; > > (seems reasonable to me, as then it will match the condition for which > glob->partitionOids are added to glob->relationOids) > > then in plancache.c the check on parallelModeNeeded can be removed: > > /* Lock partitions ahead of modifying them in parallel mode. */ > if (rti == resultRelation && > plannedstmt->partitionOids != NIL) > AcquireExecutorLocksOnPartitions(plannedstmt->partitionOids, > rte->rellockmode, acquire); > > Let me know if this matches what you were thinking. >
Yes, that is what I was thinking. But I have another question as well regarding tracking these partitions at two places (once in plannedstmt->relationOids and the second time in plannedstmt->partitionOids). I think it is better if you can prepare a patch with all the comments raised till now leaving this last question aside. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
