| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions |
| Date: | 2021-09-30 22:07:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvo7T-iDCbXbbkVSMPZ6ZK9UHtY32a-so+hVOzc1nHyu6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 20:25, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Related to the above, I noticed while looking at
> build_merged_partition_bounds() that db632fbca3 missed adding a line
> to that function to set interleaved_parts to NULL. Because the
> PartitionBoundInfo is only palloc'd (not palloc0'd), interleaved_parts
> of a "merged" bounds struct ends up pointing to garbage, so let's fix
> that. Attached a patch.
Thanks for the patch.
I think we also need to document that interleaved_parts is not set for
join relations, otherwise someone may in the future try to use that
field for an optimisation for join relations. At the moment, per
generate_orderedappend_paths, we only handle IS_SIMPLE_REL type
relations.
I've attached a patch that updates the comments to mention this.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| initialize-inteleaved_parts_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-09-30 22:26:08 | Re: Reserve prefixes for loaded libraries proposal |
| Previous Message | Florin Irion | 2021-09-30 21:54:04 | Reserve prefixes for loaded libraries proposal |