Horton

Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions

Yuya Watari <watari.yuya@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Yuya Watari <watari.yuya@gmail.com>
To: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-08-03T06:08:32Z
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. Update wording in optimizer/README for EquivalenceClasses

  2. Speedup child EquivalenceMember lookup in planner

  3. Allow planner to use Merge Append to efficiently implement UNION

  4. Remove trailing zero words from Bitmapsets

  5. Make Vars be outer-join-aware.

  6. Avoid making commutatively-duplicate clauses in EquivalenceClasses.

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:43 PM Andrey Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> You introduced list_ptr_cmp as an extern function of a List, but use it
> the only under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING ifdef.
> Maybe you hide it under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING or remove all the stuff?

Thank you for your quick reply and for pointing that out. If we remove
the verification code when committing this patch, we should also
remove the list_ptr_cmp() function because nobody will use it. If we
don't remove the verification, whether to hide it by
USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is a difficult question. The list_ptr_cmp() can be
used for generic use and is helpful even without assertions, so not
hiding it is one option. However, I understand that it is not pretty
to have the function compiled even though it is not referenced from
anywhere when assertions are disabled. As you say, I think hiding it
by USE_ASSERT_CHECKING is also a possible solution.

-- 
Best regards,
Yuya Watari