Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Date: 2017-08-17 19:54:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmobNbjV+zUmYCHhmWT_X=-tF9prL6KgVAUBh5zudT0t0+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I
> didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they rearranged the
> comments. Those changes are not part of this patch and you haven't
> comments about those changes as well. If you have intentionally
> excluded those changes, it's fine. In case, you haven't reviewed them,
> please see if they are good to be incorporated.

I took a quick look at your version but I think I like Amit's fine the
way it is, so committed that and back-patched it to v10.

I find 0002 pretty ugly as things stand. We get a bunch of tuple maps
that we don't really need, only to turn around and free them. We get
a bunch of tuple slots that we don't need, only to turn around and
drop them. We don't really need the PartitionDispatch objects either,
except for the OIDs they contain. There's a lot of extra stuff being
computed here that is really irrelevant for this purpose. I think we
should try to clean that up somehow.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-08-17 20:50:52 Re: SCRAM salt length
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-17 18:59:01 Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6