Horton

Re: Problem with default partition pruning

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: yuzuko <yuzukohosoya@gmail.com>
Cc: shawn wang <shawn.wang.pg@gmail.com>, Shawn Wang <shawn.wang@highgo.ca>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-08-06T13:30:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On 2019-Aug-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So we have three locations for that test; one is where it currently is,
> which handles a small subset of the cases.  The other is where Amit
> first proposed putting it, which handles some additional cases; and the
> third one is where your latest patch puts it, which seems to handle all
> cases.  Isn't that what Amit is saying?  If that's correct (and that's
> what I want to imply with the comment changes I proposed), then we
> should just accept that version of the patch.

... actually, there's a fourth possible location, which is outside the
per-partitioning-attribute loop.  Nothing in the moved block is to be
done per attribute, so it'd be wasted work AFAICS.  I propose the
attached.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Don't constraint-exclude partitioned tables as much

  2. Apply constraint exclusion more generally in partitioning

  3. Improve pruning of a default partition

  4. Doc: Fix event trigger firing table

  5. Remove obsolete nbtree insertion comment.