|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pruning disabled for array, enum, record, range type partition keys|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Amit Langote wrote:
> Ah, I think I got it after staring at the (btree) index code for a bit.
> What pruning code got wrong is that it's comparing the expression type
> (type of the constant arg that will be compared with partition bound
> datums when pruning) with the partopcintype to determine if we should look
> up the cross-type comparison/hashing procedure, whereas what the latter
> should be compare with is the clause operator's oprighttype. ISTM, if
> op_in_opfamily() passed for the operator, that's the correct thing to do.
I wonder why you left out the hash partitioning case? I don't really
know that this is correct, but here's a delta patch as demonstration.
(v3 is your patch, I think the only change is I renamed the tables used
in the test)
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2018-04-17 22:38:14||Re: [sqlsmith] Unpinning error in parallel worker|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2018-04-17 21:49:42||Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS|