On 11 May 2017 at 17:24, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Few comments: > 1. > Operating directly on partition doesn't allow update to move row. > Refer below example: > create table t1(c1 int) partition by range(c1); > create table t1_part_1 partition of t1 for values from (1) to (100); > create table t1_part_2 partition of t1 for values from (100) to (200); > insert into t1 values(generate_series(1,11)); > insert into t1 values(generate_series(110,120)); > > postgres=# update t1_part_1 set c1=122 where c1=11; > ERROR: new row for relation "t1_part_1" violates partition constraint > DETAIL: Failing row contains (122).
Yes, as Robert said, this is expected behaviour. We move the row only within the partition subtree that has the update table as its root. In this case, it's the leaf partition. > > 3. > + longer satisfy the partition constraint of the containing partition. In > that > + case, if there is some other partition in the partition tree for which > this > + row satisfies its partition constraint, then the row is moved to that > + partition. If there isn't such a partition, an error will occur. > > Doesn't this error case indicate that this needs to be integrated with > Default partition patch of Rahila or that patch needs to take care > this error case? > Basically, if there is no matching partition, then move it to default > partition. Will have a look on this. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
