Re: A problem about partitionwise join

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A problem about partitionwise join
Date: 2020-04-09 05:24:23
Message-ID: 2173.1586409863@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:07 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I have hopes of being able to incorporate outer
>> joins into the EC logic in a less squishy way in the future, by making
>> the representation of Vars distinguish explicitly between
>> value-before-outer-join and value-after-outer-join, after which we could
>> make bulletproof assertions about what is equal to what, even with outer
>> joins in the mix. If that works out it might produce a cleaner answer
>> in this area too.

> This is very appealing. Do we have ongoing discussions/threads about
> this idea?

There's some preliminary noodling in this thread:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/15848.1576515643%40sss.pgh.pa.us

I've pushed the earlier work discussed there, but stalled out due to
the call of other responsibilities after posting the currently-last
message in the thread. Hoping to get back into that over the summer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-09 05:35:50 Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2020-04-09 04:59:22 Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join