From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |
Date: | 2020-04-10 15:20:37 |
Message-ID: | CAG-ACPUAUmSEHL7+noRix3fMmbN6mJRL7LU1pag+aD23JG7_Rw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 20:44, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:03 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:36 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > > Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > > > Yeah, partition_bounds_merge() is currently called only from
>> > > > try_partitionwise_join(), which guarantees that the strategies are
>> the
>> > > > same.
>> >
>> > > If there's only one caller and there's not likely to ever be more,
>> > > then I tend to agree that you don't need the assertion.
>> >
>> > It seems unlikely that partition_bounds_merge() will be called from
>> > more places in the foreseeable future, so I'd still vote for removing
>> > the assertion.
>>
>> When I wrote that function, I had UNION also in mind. A UNION across
>> multiple partitioned relations will be partitioned if we can merge the
>> partition bounds in a sensible manner. Of course the current structure
>> of that function looks more purposed for join, but it's not difficult
>> to convert it to be used for UNION as well. In that case those set of
>> functions will have many more callers. So, I will vote to keep that
>> assertion now that we have it there.
>>
>
> In that case, we really should add the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY to make
> the compiler happy.
>
>
Attaching my patch again. It doesn't need PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY as well.
Kuntal has confirmed that this fixes the warning for him.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-10 15:37:02 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2020-04-10 15:19:57 | Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET |