| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |
| Date: | 2018-08-09 04:00:20 |
| Message-ID: | 31461.1533787220@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> One reason why we should adapt such a test case is that, in the future, we
> may arrange for make_partitionedrel_pruneinfo(), whose code we just fixed,
> to not be called if we know that run-time pruning is not needed. It seems
> that that's true for the test added by the commit, that is, it doesn't
> need run-time pruning.
Not following your argument here. Isn't make_partition_pruneinfo
precisely what is in charge of figuring out whether run-time pruning
is possible?
(See my point in the other thread about Jaime's assertion crash,
that no run-time pruning actually would be possible for that query.
But we got to the assertion failure anyway.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-08-09 04:03:02 | Re: Documentaion fix. |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-08-09 03:53:08 | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |