From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Prologue of set_append_rel_size() and partitioned tables |
Date: | 2017-03-29 07:18:03 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRewA_ofXOwJAoy=80p=RjKCpWFnFHwj+P_7T27+NurcJQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2017/03/29 15:20, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> The prologue of set_append_rel_size() mentions
>>
>> * .... Note that in the inheritance case,
>> * the first member relation is actually the same table as is mentioned in
>> * the parent RTE ... but it has a different RTE and RelOptInfo.
>>
>> This isn't true about partitioned tables anymore. We do not create
>> RelOptInfo of the partitioned table and thus is not first member
>> relation.
>
> My bad.
>
>> We could argue that inheritance in case of partitioned
>> tables is just an implementation detail and partitioned table is not
>> "inherited" in true sense. So "inheritance case" referred to here does
>> not cover partitioning and so the sentence still holds. But I guess,
>> this needs some change so that we do not expect first member to be
>> same as partitioned table. I am not able to craft an elegant sentence
>> but how about something like attached?
>
> I think we *should* update the comment somwhow. Since now there are a few
> places using "non-partitioned inheritance" to refer to regular parent
> tables, why not use that term here too? So:
>
> * The passed-in rel and RTE represent the entire append relation. The
> - * relation's contents are computed by appending together the output of
> - * the individual member relations. Note that in the inheritance case,
> - * the first member relation is actually the same table as is mentioned in
> - * the parent RTE ... but it has a different RTE and RelOptInfo. This is
> + * relation's contents are computed by appending together the output of the
> + * individual member relations. Note that in the non-partitioned inheritance
> + * case, the first member relation is actually the same table as is mentioned
> + * in the parent RTE ... but it has a different RTE and RelOptInfo. This is
>
> Update patch attached.
Looks good to me.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mithun Cy | 2017-03-29 07:21:59 | Re: [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes. |
Previous Message | Kang Yuzhe | 2017-03-29 07:17:50 | Re: On How To Shorten the Steep Learning Curve Towards PG Hacking... |