| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2018-05-09 02:29:32 |
| Message-ID: | bb8124db-90b8-ced1-6427-95d3d6f03793@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/05/09 11:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While looking at this code, is there any reason to not make
> gen_partprune_steps static? This is only used in partprune.c for now,
> so the intention is to make it available for future patches?
Yeah, making it static might be a good idea. I had made it externally
visible, because I was under the impression that the runtime pruning
related code would want to call it from elsewhere within the planner.
But, instead it introduced a make_partition_pruneinfo() which in turn
calls get_partprune_steps.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-05-09 02:31:39 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-05-09 02:22:12 | Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions |