Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-03-14 10:06:53
Message-ID: 4ebb182c-3b78-5608-c036-6f0f234c518f@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/03/14 8:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> By the way, I checked whether patch 0002 (additional tests) had an
> effect on coverage, and couldn't detect any changes in terms of
> lines/functions. Were you able to find any bugs in your code thanks to
> the new tests that would not have been covered by existing tests?

All tests except those for hash partitioning got added as bugs were found
in the patch and fixed. As you may know, constraint exclusion doesn't
help with pruning hash partitions, so those tests don' exercise any
existing functionality but are there for the *new* code.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-03-14 10:26:52 Re: inserts into partitioned table may cause crash
Previous Message Noah Misch 2018-03-14 09:02:51 Re: Fixes for missing schema qualifications