| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |
| Date: | 2020-04-10 15:14:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wvxe8LUO07oBJeJ5zbkj2=AngKxR6-ZQw889zQrk--wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:03 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:36 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > > Yeah, partition_bounds_merge() is currently called only from
> > > > try_partitionwise_join(), which guarantees that the strategies are
> the
> > > > same.
> >
> > > If there's only one caller and there's not likely to ever be more,
> > > then I tend to agree that you don't need the assertion.
> >
> > It seems unlikely that partition_bounds_merge() will be called from
> > more places in the foreseeable future, so I'd still vote for removing
> > the assertion.
>
> When I wrote that function, I had UNION also in mind. A UNION across
> multiple partitioned relations will be partitioned if we can merge the
> partition bounds in a sensible manner. Of course the current structure
> of that function looks more purposed for join, but it's not difficult
> to convert it to be used for UNION as well. In that case those set of
> functions will have many more callers. So, I will vote to keep that
> assertion now that we have it there.
>
In that case, we really should add the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY to make the
compiler happy.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2020-04-10 15:19:57 | Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET |
| Previous Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2020-04-10 15:08:59 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |