From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
Date: | 2020-05-09 11:35:04 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK15aejDyp7G-cnzZfobFoMRUgHEw0v7VsRV=mkxLZ+7t4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:07 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:06 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:32:16AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > c8434d64c implements a new feature whereby, to use partitionwise join,
> > > partition bounds of the tables being joined no longer have to match
> > > exactly. I think it might be better to mention this explicitly
> > > because it enables partitionwise joins to be used in more partitioning
> > > setups.
> >
> > Well, the text says:
> >
> > Allow partitionwise joins to happen in more cases (Ashutosh Bapat,
> > Etsuro Fujita, Amit Langote, Tom Lane)
> >
> > Isn't that what you just said? I just added this paragraph:
> >
> > For example, partitionwise joins can now happen between partitioned
> > tables where the ancestors do not exactly match.
> >
> > Does that help?
>
> Yes, although "ancestors do not exactly match" doesn't make clear what
> about partitioned tables doesn't match. "partition bounds do not
> exactly match" would.
+1 for that change.
Thank you for taking the time to this!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-05-09 14:40:15 | Re: +(pg_lsn, int8) and -(pg_lsn, int8) operators |
Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2020-05-09 09:48:59 | Re: [PATCH] Fix division by zero (explain.c) |