Horton

Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>

View thread
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-06-28T05:53:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Suppress unused-variable warning.

  2. Allow partitionwise joins in more cases.

  3. Avoid crash in partitionwise join planning under GEQO.

  4. Disable support for partitionwise joins in problematic cases.

  5. Add plan_cache_mode setting

  6. Add test for partitionwise join involving default partition.

  7. Revise API for partition_rbound_cmp/partition_rbound_datum_cmp.

On 2018/06/27 22:21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Amit Langote
>> Ah, okay.  I thought of reporting this because I felt the errors may have
>> to do with changes to the related code in HEAD between May 14 when you
>> last posted the patches and today that you may need to account for in you
>> patches.  For instance, there are many diffs like this:
>>
>> Looks like the Result node on top of Append is no longer there after
>> applying your patch.
> 
> Yes. They are coming because of a commit which removed Result node on
> top of an Append node. I don't remember exactly which.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about those diffs at this time. As I have mentioned
> in earlier mails, the expected output from 0006 is quite large and is
> not supposed to be committed. So, I don't see much value in fixing the
> plans in that output.
> 
> Do you see that as a hindrance in reviewing the code changes and tests in 0005?

I think not.  I'll ignore 0006 for now and focus on other patches.

Thanks,
Amit