| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(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: | 2018-04-12 16:47:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZj7cMUG690q9bts4J+JUXApxpFPXMvvL1S0QGWEKRG0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Here's an idea. Why don't we move the function/opclass creation lines
> to insert.sql, without the DROPs, and use the same functions/opclasses
> in the three tests insert.sql, alter_table.sql, hash_part.sql and
> partition_prune.sql, i.e. not recreate what are essentially the same
> objects three times? This also leaves them around for the pg_upgrade
> test, which is not a bad thing.
That sounds good, but maybe we should go further and move the
partitioning tests out of generically-named things like insert.sql
altogether and have test names that actually mention partitioning.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-12 16:49:44 | Instability in the postgres_fdw regression test |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-04-12 16:21:42 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |