Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order

From: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Date: 2017-09-13 10:16:27
Message-ID: CAJ3gD9cViv4PMzs7m0tcoec1fqQ7ohACqXEYwnP6VYPurLNTCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13 September 2017 at 15:32, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2017/09/11 18:56, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached updated patch does it that way for both partitioned table indexes
>> and leaf partition indexes. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> It seems to me we don't really need the first patch all that much. That
> is, let's keep PartitionDispatchData the way it is for now, since we don't
> really have any need for it beside tuple-routing (EIBO as committed didn't
> need it for one). So, let's forget about "decoupling
> RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo() from the executor" thing for now and
> move on.
>
> So, attached is just the patch to make RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo()
> traverse the partition tree in depth-first manner to be applied on HEAD.
>
> Thoughts?

+1. If at all we need the decoupling later for some reason, we can do
that incrementally.

Will review your latest patch by tomorrow.

--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2017-09-13 10:30:15 Re: Surjective functional indexes
Previous Message Christoph Berg 2017-09-13 10:14:59 Re: Surjective functional indexes