Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: 2018-04-02 01:42:47
Message-ID: 81ef1607-db3b-f853-927a-079865095d37@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/03/30 22:41, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 March 2018 at 02:00, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 31 March 2018 at 01:18, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I've noticed that there are no outfuncs or readfuncs for all the new
>>> Step types you've added.
>>>
>>> Also, the copy func does not properly copy the step_id in the base
>>> node type. This will remain at 0 after a copyObject()
>>
>> Attaching it as it may save you some time from doing it yourself.
>> Please check it though.
>
> The attached might be slightly easier to apply. The previous version
> was based on top of some other changes I'd been making.

Thanks David. I have merged this.

Regards,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeevan Ladhe 2018-04-02 04:10:23 Re: Commit 4dba331cb3 broke ATTACH PARTITION behaviour.
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2018-04-01 22:19:28 Re: Diagonal storage model