|From:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 23 January 2018 at 23:22, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/01/23 15:44, David Rowley wrote:
>> Attached is what I had in mind about how to do this.
> Thanks for the delta patch. I will start looking at it tomorrow.
Thanks. I've been looking more at this and I've made a few more
adjustments in the attached.
This delta patch should be applied against the
faster_partition_prune_v21_delta_drowley_v1.patch one I sent
yesterday. This changes a few comments, also now correctly passes the
context to get_partitions_excluded_by_ne_clauses and fixes a small
error where the patch was failing to record a notnull for the
partition key when it saw a strict <> clause. It was only doing this
for the opposite case, but both seem to be perfectly applicable. I
also made a small adjustment to the regression tests to ensure this is
I'm now going to start work on basing the partition pruning patch on
top of this.
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
|Next Message||Michail Nikolaev||2018-01-24 00:16:38||[PATCH] fix for C4141 warning on MSVC|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2018-01-23 23:36:04||Re: Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section|