| From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(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: | 2020-04-09 06:33:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK15AAW2Y7f=p+uBP2tj8H079iw4p0N=W4rwz3e0gqgEdKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-09 06:44:26 | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-04-09 06:23:48 | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |