Re: Problem with default partition pruning

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

To: hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp

Cc: thibaut.madelaine@dalibo.com, imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org

Date: 2019-03-19T02:40:41Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello.

At Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:30:07 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20190315.173007.147577546.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> The patch relies on the fact(?) that the lowest index is always
> -1 in range partition and uses it as pseudo default
> partition. I'm not sure it is really the fact and anyway it
> donsn't seem the right thing to do. Could you explain how it
> works, not what you did in this patch?

I understood how it works but still uneasy that only list
partitioning requires scan_default. Anyway please ignore this.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Commits

Don't constraint-exclude partitioned tables as much
- 815ef2f568c7 13.0 landed
Apply constraint exclusion more generally in partitioning
- 4e85642d935e 13.0 landed
Improve pruning of a default partition
- e3967a16d3a0 11.5 landed
- 86544071484a 12.0 landed
- 489247b0e615 13.0 landed
Doc: Fix event trigger firing table
- 44460d7017cd 13.0 cited
Remove obsolete nbtree insertion comment.
- 489e431ba56b 12.0 cited