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
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 |