| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2018-04-07 04:09:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20180407040923.gmv56jq3wrp5pten@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-07 15:49:54 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Right, I suggest we wait and see if all members go green again as a
> result of 40e42e1024c, and if they're happy then we could maybe leave
> it as is with the 2 alternatives output files.
At least the first previously borked animal came back green (termite).
> I don't particularly think it matters which hash partition a tuple
> goes into, as long as the hash function spreads the values out enough
> and most importantly, the pruning code looks for the tuple in the
> partition that it was actually inserted into in the first place.
> Obviously, we also want to ensure we never do anything which would
> change the matching partition in either minor or major version
> upgrades too.
+1
I've also attempted to fix rhinoceros's failure I remarked upon a couple
hours ago in
https://postgr.es/m/20180406210330.wmqw42wqgiicktli@alap3.anarazel.de
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-07 04:11:03 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-07 03:49:54 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |