Horton

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

Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
To: 9erthalion6@gmail.com
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, ah@cybertec.at, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2018-09-17T09:20:21Z
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 Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 08:23, Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I won't be working on this actively in the next commitfest. I will be
> > >> glad if somebody else wants to take this up. If there's nobody,
> > >> probably we should mark this entry as "returned with feedback" in the
> > >> next commitfest.
> > >
> > > Since I'm more or less familiar with the code and I believe it's an
> interesting
> > > feature, I can try to take over it for now if you don't mind (but
> without any
> > > strong commitments to make it perfectly shining for the next CF).
> >
> > Please do. Thanks.
>
> I've noticed that the patch is outdated already, so here is the rebased
> version. I also removed the last part with the extra tests since it
> was something
> internal


I am fine with that. It was never meant to be committed. I used to run
those tests to make sure that any changes to the core logic do not break
any working scenarios. Whenever I found a new failure in the extra tests
which wasn't there in tests to be committed, I used to move that test from
the first to the second. Over the time, the number of new failures in extra
has reduced and recently I didn't see any extra failures. So, may be it's
time for the extra tests to be dropped. I will suggest that keep the extra
tests running from time to time and certainly around the time the feature
gets committed.


> and merged the debug message into the implementation part. Ashutosh,
> please let me know if you're not happy with these modifications.
>

Robert Haas raised objections, and I agreed to those, about a similar debug
message I had included in the basic partition-wise join patches. I think
those reasons still apply, so you will need to remove the debug message
before the patches get committed. Said that the debug message is a good
debugging aid, so keeping it around till that time is a good idea.


>
> Other than that I haven't changed anything yet, but hope this will come
> soon.
> And this version is more to keep it updated for those people who may be
> interested.
>

Thanks.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat