Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 13 April 2018 at 14:15, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/04/13 1:47, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Here's an idea. Why don't we move the function/opclass creation lines
>>> to insert.sql, without the DROPs, and use the same functions/opclasses
>>> in the three tests insert.sql, alter_table.sql, hash_part.sql and
>>> partition_prune.sql, i.e. not recreate what are essentially the same
>>> objects three times? This also leaves them around for the pg_upgrade
>>> test, which is not a bad thing.
>>
>> That sounds good, but maybe we should go further and move the
>> partitioning tests out of generically-named things like insert.sql
>> altogether and have test names that actually mention partitioning.
>
> Do you mean to do that for *all* files that have tests exercising some
> partitioning code, even if it's just one test? I can see that tests in at
> least some of them could be put into their own partition_ file as follows:

Wouldn't it be best to just move hash partition tests into hash_part?
Leave all the other stuff where it is?

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