Re: Problem with default partition pruning

Hosoya-san,

On 2019/03/22 15:02, Yuzuko Hosoya wrote:
> I understood Amit's proposal.  But I think the issue Thibaut reported would 
> occur regardless of whether clauses have OR clauses or not as follows.
> I tested a query which should output "One-Time Filter: false".
> 
> # explain select * from test2_0_20 where id = 25;
>                               QUERY PLAN                               
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Append  (cost=0.00..25.91 rows=6 width=36)
>    ->  Seq Scan on test2_10_20_def  (cost=0.00..25.88 rows=6 width=36)
>          Filter: (id = 25)
> 

Good catch, thanks.

> As Amit described in the previous email, id = 25 contradicts test2_0_20's
> partition constraint, so I think this clause should be ignored and we can
> also handle this case in the similar way as Amit proposal.
> 
> I attached v1-delta-2.patch which fix the above issue.  
> 
> What do you think about it?

It looks fine to me.  You put the code block to check whether a give
clause contradicts the partition constraint in its perfect place. :)

Maybe we should have two patches as we seem to be improving two things:

1. Patch to fix problems with default partition pruning originally
reported by Hosoya-san

2. Patch to determine if a given clause contradicts a sub-partitioned
table's partition constraint, fixing problems unearthed by Thibaut's tests

About the patch that Horiguchi-san proposed upthread, I think it has merit
that it will make partprune.c code easier to reason about, but I think we
should pursue it separately.

Thanks,
Amit