| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, yuzuko <yuzukohosoya(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-08-13 15:25:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20190813152517.GA9767@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-13, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks a lot for revising. Looks neat, except:
>
> + * This is a measure of last resort only to be used because the default
> + * partition cannot be pruned using the steps; regular pruning, which is
> + * cheaper, is sufficient when no default partition exists.
>
> This text appears to imply that the default can *never* be pruned with
> steps. Maybe, the first sentence should read something like: "...the
> default cannot be pruned using the steps generated from clauses that
> contradict the parent's partition constraint".
Thanks! I have pushed it with this change.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2019-08-13 15:45:15 | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2019-08-13 15:04:52 | Re: Built-in connection pooler |