Horton

Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Amit Langote <amitlan@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-02-20T05:39:19Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:50, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
> > get_matching_range_bounds().
> > Above that function we have:
> >   * 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.
> >

> Yeah, that seems worth fixing in master as, I agree, the comment is
> wrong.  Possibly, we considered supporting <> for RANGE partitioning
> at some point, I don't recall.
>
> I was also working on a fix for what I mentioned in [1], which, I
> think, is master-only material.  I'd say we can fix the comment as
> part of that.
>
> The patch for both is attached.

I've pushed this patch.

David

Commits

  1. Minor corrections for partition pruning

  2. Fix incorrect pruning of NULL partition for boolean IS NOT clauses