Re: speeding up planning with partitions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: speeding up planning with partitions
Date: 2019-02-19 01:36:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> ISTM the 0004 patch eventually removes these codes from multiple places (set_append_rel_size and set_inherited_target_rel_sizes) so we might be better to not be struggling here?

Yeah, Amit just pointed that out (and I'd not read 0004 before reacting to
0001). If the final state of the code isn't going to look like this, then
whether the intermediate state is good style becomes far less important.
Still, maybe it'd be better to drop the 0001 patch and absorb its effects
into the later patch that makes that if-test go away entirely.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chengchao Yu 2019-02-19 02:07:32 RE: [PATCH] Fix Proposal - Deadlock Issue in Single User Mode When IO Failure Occurs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-19 01:29:29 Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction