Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Date: 2018-05-09 08:23:23
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/05/09 13:14, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi David.
> Thanks for addressing my comments.
> On 2018/05/07 15:00, David Rowley wrote:
>> v2 patch is attached.
> Looks good to me.

Sorry, I should've seen noticed v3 before sending my email.

v3 looks good too, but when going through it, I noticed one bit in 5.10.4.
Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion:

A good rule of thumb is that partitioning constraints should
contain only comparisons of the partitioning column(s) to constants
using B-tree-indexable operators, which applies even to partitioned
tables, because only B-tree-indexable column(s) are allowed in the
partition key.

I think the part after ", which applies even to partitioned tables,.."
should be removed.

Attached find the updated patch.


Attachment Content-Type Size
further_enable_partition_pruning_doc_updates_v4.patch text/plain 7.0 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleksandr Shulgin 2018-05-09 09:49:25 Re: Setting libpq TCP keepalive parameters from environment
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-05-09 06:10:39 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning