Re: pruning disabled for array, enum, record, range type partition keys
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-18T21:45:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
Amit Langote wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > Makes sense. Still, I was expecting that pruning of hash partitioning > > would also work for pseudotypes, yet it doesn't. > > It does? Aha, so it does. While staring at this new code, I was confused as to why we didn't use the commutator if the code above had determined one. I was unable to cause a test to fail, so I put that thought aside. Some time later, after restructuring the code in a way that seemed to make more sense to me (and saving one get_op_opfamily_properties call for the case of the not-equals operator), I realized that with the new code we can store the opstrategy in the PartClause instead of leaving it as Invalid and look it up again later, so I did that. And lo and behold, the tests that used commutators started failing! So I fixed that one in the obvious way, and the tests work fully again. Please give this version another look. I also rewrote a couple of comments. I now wonder if there's anything else that equivclass.c or indxpath.c can teach us on this topic. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Rework code to determine partition pruning procedure
- e5dcbb88a15d 11.0 landed