Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions

From: Alena Rybakina <lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru>
To: Yuya Watari <watari(dot)yuya(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lepikhov Andrei <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions
Date: 2023-11-17 21:04:12
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, all!

While I was reviewing the patches, I noticed that they needed some
rebasing, and in one of the patches
(Introduce-indexes-for-RestrictInfo.patch) there was a conflict with the
recently added self-join-removal feature [1]. So, I rebased patches and
resolved the conflicts. While I was doing this, I found a problem that I
also fixed:

1. Due to the lack of ec_source_indexes, ec_derive_indexes, we could
catch an error during the execution of atomic functions such as:

ERROR: unrecognized token: ")"
Context: внедрённая в код SQL-функция "shobj_description"

I fixed it.

We save the current reading context before reading the field name, then
check whether the field has been read and, if not, restore the context
to allow the next macro reads the field name correctly.

I added the solution to the bug_related_atomic_function.diff file.

2. I added the solution to the conflict to the
solved_conflict_with_self_join_removal.diff file.

All diff files have already been added to
v21-0002-Introduce-indexes-for-RestrictInfo patch.


Alena Rybakina

Attachment Content-Type Size
solved_conflict_with_self_join_removal.diff text/x-patch 8.5 KB
bug_related_to_atomic_function.diff text/x-patch 2.3 KB
v21-0001-PATCH-v20-1-2-Speed-up-searches-for-child-Equivalenc.patch text/x-patch 61.3 KB
v21-0002-PATCH-1-2-Introduce-indexes-for-RestrictInfo-This-ch.patch text/x-patch 37.6 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2023-11-17 21:08:09 Re: should check collations when creating partitioned index
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-11-17 21:02:05 Re: lazy_scan_heap() should release lock on buffer before vacuuming FSM