| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2017-11-29 20:28:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoasbKBGf_TiQAh-F9WThRCHtmHRQfBY9YK8Asnd8kPJhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that
> wasn't based on a valid assumption. I was wrongly assuming that all hash
> partitions for a given modulus (largest modulus) must exist at any given
> time, but that isn't the case.
Committed 0003 with some adjustments:
* Renamed the new test to partition_prune.
* Moved the test to what I thought was a better place in the schedule
file, and made it consistent between serial_schedule and
parallel_schedule.
* commutates -> commuted
* removed wrong /* empty */ comment
* Updated expected output. It surprised me a bit that the tests
weren't passing as you had them, but the differences I got - all
related to mc3p_default - seemed correct to me
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-29 21:39:14 | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2017-11-29 20:06:11 | Unclear regression test for postgres_fdw |