Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-05-09 06:10:39
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:01:26PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/09 11:31, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 9 May 2018 at 14:29, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> On 2018/05/09 11:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> While looking at this code, is there any reason to not make
>>>> gen_partprune_steps static? This is only used in partprune.c for now,
>>>> so the intention is to make it available for future patches?
>>> Yeah, making it static might be a good idea. I had made it externally
>>> visible, because I was under the impression that the runtime pruning
>>> related code would want to call it from elsewhere within the planner.
>>> But, instead it introduced a make_partition_pruneinfo() which in turn
>>> calls get_partprune_steps.
>> Yeah. Likely left over from when run-time pruning was generating the
>> steps during execution rather than during planning.
> Here is a patch that does that.

Thanks, Amit.

Alvaro, could it be possible to consider as well the patch I posted

This removes a useless default clause in partprune.c and it got
forgotten in the crowd. Just attaching it again here, and it can just
be applied on top of the rest.

Attachment Content-Type Size
partprune-useless-default.patch text/x-diff 437 bytes

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2018-05-09 08:23:23 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-05-09 05:01:26 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning