| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |
| Date: | 2018-06-13 14:39:19 |
| Message-ID: | 28597.1528900759@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Seems reasonable. Really, I think we should look for a way to hang
> onto the relation at the point where it's originally opened and locked
> instead of reopening it here. But that's probably more invasive than
> we can really justify right at the moment, and I think this is a step
> in a good direction.
The existing coding there makes me itch a bit, because there's only a
rather fragile line of reasoning justifying the assumption that there is a
pre-existing lock at all. So I'd be in favor of what you suggest just to
get rid of the "open(NoLock)" hazard. But I agree that it'd be rather
invasive and right now is probably not the time for it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-06-13 14:49:54 | Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL Standard |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-06-13 14:25:10 | Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots |