Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-04-06 00:06:08
Message-ID: CAKJS1f-DS7W4S-7EaKZFfowY3+MhH4efQ29=Xd4Ms_xTcnQbqA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6 April 2018 at 12:02, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6 April 2018 at 10:35, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> The only other thing I noted on this pass is that we could get rid of:
>
> + /* go check the next clause. */
> + if (unsupported_clause)
> + break;
>
> and just "continue" instead of "break" in all cases apart from case
> PARTCLAUSE_UNSUPPORTED:

I should have said remove:

+ if (unsupported_clause)

The "break" would still be required.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2018-04-06 00:28:17 Re: Online enabling of checksums
Previous Message David Rowley 2018-04-06 00:02:11 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning