Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-02-09T06:05:38Z
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 →
-
Suppress unused-variable warning.
- 401418ca6a68 13.0 landed
-
Allow partitionwise joins in more cases.
- c8434d64ce03 13.0 landed
-
Avoid crash in partitionwise join planning under GEQO.
- 7ad6498fd5a6 12.0 cited
- d70c147fa217 11.3 cited
-
Disable support for partitionwise joins in problematic cases.
- 7cfdc77023ad 12.0 cited
-
Add plan_cache_mode setting
- f7cb2842bf47 12.0 cited
-
Add test for partitionwise join involving default partition.
- 4513d3a4be0b 12.0 cited
-
Revise API for partition_rbound_cmp/partition_rbound_datum_cmp.
- b0229235564f 11.0 landed
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2018/02/09 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme, >>> which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out >>> that portion of the patch. That is, the changes to PartitionScheme struct >>> definition and those to find_partition_scheme(). >> >> I am not sure whether a patch with just that change and without any >> changes to use that member will be acceptable. So leaving this aside. > > I asked, because with everything that I have now changed in the partition > pruning patch, one would need to pass these FmgrInfo pointers down to > partition bound searching functions from the optimizer. If the changes to > add partsupfunc to the optimizer were taken out from your main patch, the > pruning patch could just start using it. For now, I'm making those > changes part of the pruning patch. That's fine. Someone's patch will be committed first and the other will just take out those changes. But I am open to separate those changes into other patch if a committer feels so. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company