Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath
Date: 2017-11-30 03:04:18
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30 November 2017 at 15:34, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>

> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:17 PM, David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > The remove_singleton_appends_examples_of_differences_2017-11-15.patch
> > which I've attached applies changes to the regression tests to make
> > many of the major tables partitioned tables with a single partition.
> > It also changes the expected results of the small insignificant plan
> > changes and leaves only the actual true differences. This file is not
> > intended for commit, but more just a demo of it working for a larger
> > variety of plan shapes. There is actually no additional tests with the
> > patch. It relies on the places in the existing tests which have
> > changed. I didn't add any extra as I can't think of any particular
> > area to target given that it's such a generic thing that can apply to
> > so many different cases.
> The last patch set does not apply and did not get any reviews. So I am
> moving this item to the next with waiting on author as status.

(returning from 2 weeks leave)

Thanks for managing the commitfest.

I've attached a patch which fixes the conflict with the regression test
expected output in inherits.out. I've also made changes to the expected
output in the new partition_prune test's expected output.

I'll set this back to waiting on review now.

David Rowley
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
remove_append_rel_2017-11-30.patch application/octet-stream 58.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-11-30 03:08:09 Re: [HACKERS] <> join selectivity estimate question
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-30 02:44:05 Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql - additional extra checks