Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type
Date: 2018-07-11 00:26:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/07/11 3:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-May-08, Amit Langote wrote:
>> In HEAD, since we already fixed that case in e5dcbb88a15d [1] which is a
>> different piece of code anyway, the patch only serves to improve the
>> deparse output emitted by ruleutils.c for partition constraint expressions
>> where pseudo-type partition key is involved. The change can be seen in
>> the updated test output for create_table test.
> Actually, even in 11/master it also fixes this case:
> alvherre=# explain update p set a = a || a where a = '{1}';
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> Update on p (cost=0.00..54.03 rows=14 width=38)
> Update on p1
> Update on p2
> -> Seq Scan on p1 (cost=0.00..27.02 rows=7 width=38)
> Filter: (a = '{1}'::integer[])
> -> Seq Scan on p2 (cost=0.00..27.02 rows=7 width=38)
> Filter: (a = '{1}'::integer[])
> (7 filas)
> Because UPDATE uses the predtest.c prune code, not partprune. So it's
> not just some ruleutils beautification.

That's true. Shame I totally missed that.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-07-11 00:29:43 Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key
Previous Message Asim R P 2018-07-11 00:15:13 Shared buffer access rule violations?