Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah sorry, I was wrong about remote_conds. remote_conds and local_conds
> > are basically the conditions on the relation being pushed down.
> > havingQuals are conditions on a grouped relation so treating them like
> > baserestrictinfo or join conditions looks more straight forward,
> > rather than having a separate member in PgFdwRelationInfo. So, remote
> > havingQuals go into remote_conds and local havingQuals go to
> > local_conds.
>
> Looks like we already do that. Then we have remote_conds, local_conds
> which together should be equivalent to havingQual. Storing all those
> three doesn't make sense. In future someone may use havingQual instead
> of remote_conds/local_conds just because its available and then there
> is risk of these three lists going out of sync.
>

Yep, I see the risk.

>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Ashutosh Bapat
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> The Postgres Database Company
>

--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company