Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-10T15:50:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11 April 2018 at 03:14, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > 2. Do we want to revert Andrew's test stabilization patch? If I > understand correctly, the problem is the inverse of what was diagnosed: > "any running transaction at the time of the test could prevent pages > from being set as all-visible". That's correct, but the test doesn't > depend on pages being all-visible -- quite the contrary, it depends on > the pages NOT being all-visible (which is why the HeapFetches counts are > all non-zero). Since the pages contain very few tuples, autovacuum > should never process the tables anyway. I think it's probably a good idea to revert it once the instrumentation is working correctly. It appears this found a bug in that code, so is probably useful to keep just in case something else breaks it in the future. I don't think there is too much risk of instability from other sources. There's no reason an auto-vacuum would trigger and cause a change in heap fetches. We only delete one row from lprt_a, that's not going to trigger an auto-vacuum. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Commits
-
Update Append's idea of first_partial_plan
- b7e2cbc5b49f 11.0 landed
-
Fix IndexOnlyScan counter for heap fetches in parallel mode
- 15a8f8caad14 11.0 landed
-
Fix incorrect logic for choosing the next Parallel Append subplan
- 468abb8f7a69 11.0 landed
-
Minor comment updates
- d7a95f06a1a1 11.0 landed
-
Attempt to stabilize partition_prune test output.
- b47a86f5008f 11.0 landed
-
Support partition pruning at execution time
- 499be013de65 11.0 cited