Re: Problem with default partition pruning

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: yuzuko <yuzukohosoya(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: shawn wang <shawn(dot)wang(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shawn Wang <shawn(dot)wang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with default partition pruning
Date: 2019-08-06 13:30:53
Message-ID: 20190806133053.GA23706@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Aug-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So we have three locations for that test; one is where it currently is,
> which handles a small subset of the cases. The other is where Amit
> first proposed putting it, which handles some additional cases; and the
> third one is where your latest patch puts it, which seems to handle all
> cases. Isn't that what Amit is saying? If that's correct (and that's
> what I want to imply with the comment changes I proposed), then we
> should just accept that version of the patch.

... actually, there's a fourth possible location, which is outside the
per-partitioning-attribute loop. Nothing in the moved block is to be
done per attribute, so it'd be wasted work AFAICS. I propose the

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
v7_ignore_contradictory_where_clauses_at_partprune_step.patch text/x-diff 5.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2019-08-06 14:35:58 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2019-08-06 13:08:48 Re: Assertion for logically decoding multi inserts into the catalog