| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |
| Date: | 2018-06-02 22:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1111.1527977170@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It's worth questioning whether this is a bug fix or an improvement.
>> If the latter, it probably ought to wait for v12.
> If explaining the change requires reference to tokens from the source code,
> rather than something an end user could understand, I'd argue it is a bug
> fix rather than an improvement.
Well, the difference between volatile, stable and immutable functions is
well-documented, so I don't think that's a great argument. If there's
some aspect of this behavior that's not predictable from understanding
which class the partition key expression falls into, then I could agree
that's a bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-02 23:38:23 | Few cosmetic suggestions for commit 16828d5c (Fast Alter Table Add Column...) |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-06-02 21:52:05 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |