| 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: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2017-11-03 03:05:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f8HaL_++ikyvH8ZCp4=kJwSm6rZ_svpBg684d+=KNzXmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Attached updated version of the patches addressing some of your comments
> above and fixing a bug that Rajkumar reported [1]. As mentioned there,
> I'm including here a patch (the 0005 of the attached) to tweak the default
> range partition constraint to be explicit about null values that it might
> contain. So, there are 6 patches now and what used to be patch 0005 in
> the previous set is patch 0006 in this version of the set.
Hi Amit,
I've been looking over this. I see the latest patches conflict with
cf7ab13bf. Can you send patches rebased on current master?
Thanks
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chiru r | 2017-11-03 03:16:58 | SSL and Encryption |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-03 02:46:36 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |