| 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 |
| Thread: | |
| 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
attached.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
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 |
| 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 |