Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

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: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-05-09 05:01:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/05/09 11:31, David Rowley wrote:
> On 9 May 2018 at 14:29, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yeah. Likely left over from when run-time pruning was generating the
> steps during execution rather than during planning.

Here is a patch that does that.


Attachment Content-Type Size
make-gen_partprune_steps-static.patch text/plain 1.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-05-09 06:10:39 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-05-09 04:14:15 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?