|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018/02/08 11:55, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi Ashutosh.
> On 2018/02/07 13:51, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> Here's a new patchset with following changes
>> 1. Rebased on the latest head taking care of partition bound
>> comparison function changes
> I was about to make these changes myself while revising the fast pruning
> patch. Instead, I decided to take a look at your patch and try to use it
> in my tree.
I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme,
which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out
that portion of the patch. That is, the changes to PartitionScheme struct
definition and those to find_partition_scheme().
Regarding the latter, wouldn't be nice to have a comment before the code
that does the copying about why we don't compare the partsupfunc field to
decide if we have a match or not. I understand it's because the
partsupfunc array contains pointers, not OIDs. But maybe, that's too
obvious to warrant a comment.
|Next Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2018-02-08 05:44:35||Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem|
|Previous Message||David Fetter||2018-02-08 04:51:50||Re: it's a feature, but it feels like a bug|