| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Date: | 2018-05-09 08:23:23 |
| Message-ID: | a8ad3dd8-ef30-bbd0-6732-a673710378fa@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg토토 캔SQL : |
On 2018/05/09 13:14, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> Thanks for addressing my comments.
>
> On 2018/05/07 15:00, David Rowley wrote:
>> v2 patch is attached.
>
> Looks good to me.
Sorry, I should've seen noticed v3 before sending my email.
v3 looks good too, but when going through it, I noticed one bit in 5.10.4.
Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion:
A good rule of thumb is that partitioning constraints should
contain only comparisons of the partitioning column(s) to constants
using B-tree-indexable operators, which applies even to partitioned
tables, because only B-tree-indexable column(s) are allowed in the
partition key.
I think the part after ", which applies even to partitioned tables,.."
should be removed.
Attached find the updated patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| further_enable_partition_pruning_doc_updates_v4.patch | text/plain | 7.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2018-05-09 09:49:25 | Re: Setting libpq TCP keepalive parameters from environment |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-09 06:10:39 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |