From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes |
Date: | 2016-03-30 15:49:24 |
Message-ID: | CACjxUsPdUNmJaWYQwZk6aBCcR-CQeAAvN3etKtjNehELOsmQHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> ===
>> @@ -2697,6 +2697,7 @@ check_partial_indexes(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo
>> *rel)
>> continue; /* don't repeat
>> work if already proven OK */
>>
>> have_partial = true;
>> + break;
>> }
>> if (!have_partial)
>> return;
>> ===
>>
>> The initialization has been moved to set_rel_size so the break
>> can be restored.
>
> FWIW the break was restored in the v9 by me.
Yeah, I kept that in v10, so the three of us seem to be on the same
page there.
>> FWIW, as mentioned upthread, I added the following condition to
>> decline ripping index predicates from base restrictinfo without
>> understanding the reason to do so.
>
> Ummmm, I'm a bit confused. Which condition?
Yeah, any additional discussion about areas which anyone sees as
open or still needing attention might allow me to get enough
traction to wrap this; I'm having trouble seeing what the pending
issues are where both Tom and Kyotaro-san seemed to be unsatisfied.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-03-30 15:51:14 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-03-30 15:48:36 | pgsql: Introduce SP-GiST operator class over box. |