From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
Date: | 2018-07-03 11:31:27 |
Message-ID: | 20180703113127.GF11732@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:16:55PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Oh okay. Yeah, you can hit that with a partitionless sub-partitioned
> table.
Thanks for the patch and fixing the typo ;)
+create table list_parted_tbl (a int,b int) partition by list (a);
+create table list_parted_tbl1 partition of list_parted_tbl for values
in(1) partition by list(b);
+select * from list_parted_tbl;
+explain (costs off) select * from list_parted_tbl;
I am not sure if it is much interesting to keep around this table set
for pg_upgrade, so I would drop it. Except for that, the result looks
fine. I'll double-check and wrap it tomorrow on HEAD and REL_11_STABLE.
The optimizations mentioned sound interesting, though I would recommend
to not risk the stability of v11 at this point, so let's keep them for
v12~.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-07-03 11:34:01 | Re: pgsql: Fix memory leak in PLySequence_ToJsonbValue() |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-03 11:16:55 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-03 11:37:50 | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
Previous Message | Moon, Insung | 2018-07-03 11:26:43 | RE: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |