Re: NOT IN subquery optimization

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Li, Zheng" <zhelli(at)amazon(dot)com>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NOT IN subquery optimization
Date: 2019-03-05 09:10:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/5/19 10:53 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 21:21, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 2/27/19 2:26 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>>> FWIW, I did add this to the March CF, but I set the target version to
>>> 13. I wasn't considering this for PG12. I see Zheng was, but I agree
>>> with you on PG13 being the target for this.
>> Looks like the target version of 13 was removed but I have added it back.
> The problem seems to be that there are now 2 CF entries for this
> thread. I originally added [1], but later Zheng added [2]. From what
> Jim mentioned when he opened this thread I had the idea that no patch
> existed yet, so I posted the one I already had written for this 4
> years ago thinking that might be useful to base new work on.

Yeah, I just figured this out when I got to your patch which was
properly marked as PG13 and then saw they were pointing at the same thread.

At the very least one of the patch entries should be closed, or moved to
a new thread.

I'm not sure if I have an issue with competing patches on the same
thread. I've seen that before and it can lead to a good outcome. It
case, as you say, also lead to confusion.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message yuzuko 2019-03-05 09:13:32 Re: Problem with default partition pruning
Previous Message PG Bug reporting form 2019-03-05 09:05:55 BUG #15668: Server crash in transformPartitionRangeBounds