| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled. |
| Date: | 2018-08-13 02:57:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYhgEkcR1E-BMS-2G8A4_5z0bbN6vCO+uR7HyQCOsWpEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> In the above I used the test whether the relation's reloptkind is
> RELOPT_BASEREL or not, but I noticed that I had overlooked the case of a
> multi-level partitioned table. So I fixed that and added regression test
> cases for that. I also revised comments a bit. Attached is an updated
> version of the patch.
+ /* If so, consider partitionwise joins for that join. */
+ if (IS_PARTITIONED_REL(joinrel))
+ joinrel->consider_partitionwise_join = true;
Maybe this should assert that the inner and outer rels have
consider_partitionwise_join set. There is an Assert quite a bit
earlier in the function that the parent join have it set, but I think
it might make sense to check the children have it set whenever we set
the flag.
Aside from that I don't really have any suggestions on this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-13 03:03:31 | Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-13 02:44:33 | Re: Scariest patch tournament, PostgreSQL 11 edition |