Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time
Date: 2018-04-08 02:49:39
Message-ID: 20180408024939.wyyc4zynvwe4rrwl@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Support partition pruning at execution time
>
> Buildfarm member lapwing doesn't like this. I can reproduce the
> failures here by setting force_parallel_mode = regress. Kind
> of looks like instrumentation counts aren't getting propagated
> from workers back to the leader?

This theory seems correct; the counters are getting incremented, yet
explain later prints them as zero. What is the code that is supposed to
propagate the instrumentation counts?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-04-08 02:56:21 Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-04-08 01:33:01 pgsql: Remove overzeleous assertions in pg_atomic_flag code.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-04-08 02:56:21 Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time
Previous Message Christophe Pettus 2018-04-08 02:37:47 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS