| From: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yuya Watari <watari(dot)yuya(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |
| Date: | 2022-11-08 11:31:04 |
| Message-ID: | 04f34160-e016-247b-ba51-27cfb856cd1b@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/11/2022 15:27, Yuya Watari wrote:
> I noticed that the previous patch does not apply to the current HEAD.
> I attached the rebased version to this email.
Looking into find_em_for_rel() changes I see that you replaced
if (bms_is_subset(em->em_relids, rel->relids)
with assertion statement.
According of get_ecmember_indexes(), the em_relids field of returned
equivalence members can contain relids, not mentioned in the relation.
I don't understand, why it works now? For example, we can sort by t1.x,
but have an expression t1.x=t1.y*t2.z. Or I've missed something? If it
is not a mistake, maybe to add a comment why assertion here isn't failed?
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-11-08 11:49:53 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | Karthik Jagadish (kjagadis) | 2022-11-08 11:30:44 | Tables not getting vacuumed in postgres |