| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya(dot)yuzuko(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Runtime pruning problem |
| Date: | 2019-09-12 14:11:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20190912141153.GA31190@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jul-30, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > This may be arguing for a change in ruleutils' existing behavior,
> > not sure. But when dealing with traditional-style inheritance,
> > I've always thought that Vars above the Append were referring to
> > the parent rel in its capacity as the parent, not in its capacity
> > as the first child. With new-style partitioning drawing a clear
> > distinction between the parent and all its children, it's easier
> > to understand the difference.
>
> OK, so experimenting, I see that it is a change: [...]
> The portion of this below the Append is fine, but I argue that
> the Vars above the Append should say "part", not "part_p1".
> In that way they'd look the same regardless of which partitions
> have been pruned or not.
So is anyone working on a patch to use this approach?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-12 14:24:13 | Re: Runtime pruning problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-12 14:00:31 | Re: Misleading comment in tuplesort_set_bound |