From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: pg_publication_tables show dropped columns |
Date: | 2022-09-06 07:57:43 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB571610CCAB5763BCBC5976E8947E9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
> > Just trying the new column/row filter on v15, I found this issue that
> > could be replicated very easily.
>
> Bleah. Post-beta4 catversion bump, here we come.
Oh, Sorry for the miss.
> > This could be solved by adding a "NOT attisdropped", simple patch
> > attached.
>
> That view seems quite inefficient as written --- I wonder if we can't do better by
> nuking the join-to-unnest business and putting the restriction in a WHERE
> clause on the pg_attribute scan.
> The query plan that you get for it right now is certainly awful.
I agree and try to improve the query as suggested.
Here is the new version patch.
I think the query plan and cost looks better after applying the patch.
Best regards,
Hou zj
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Ignore-dropped-columns-in-pg_publication_tables.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.7 KB |
query_plans.txt | text/plain | 4.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-09-06 08:02:36 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v12 |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2022-09-06 07:51:43 | Re: Return value of PathNameOpenFile() |