Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > Here's an idea. Why don't we move the function/opclass creation lines
> > to insert.sql, without the DROPs, and use the same functions/opclasses
> > in the three tests insert.sql, alter_table.sql, hash_part.sql and
> > partition_prune.sql, i.e. not recreate what are essentially the same
> > objects three times? This also leaves them around for the pg_upgrade
> > test, which is not a bad thing.
>
> That sounds good, but maybe we should go further and move the
> partitioning tests out of generically-named things like insert.sql
> altogether and have test names that actually mention partitioning.

I don't think that's necessary to fix the problem that
partition_prune_hash.sql file has two expected output files. If you
want to propose such a reorganization, feel free, but let's not hijack
the patch at hand. For the record, I'm not a fan of the idea.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services