| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FailedAssertion on partprune |
| Date: | 2018-07-30 23:25:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20180730232554.jxh67zgw6ts3xr44@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jul-25, David Rowley wrote:
> Thinking again about the patch I submitted upthread; I wonder if it's
> actually possible to support pruning with Jamie's query. Without
> looking at the code, I don't quite see the reason that the
> sub-partitioned table wouldn't be correctly pruned by the run-time
> pruning code. It could just be a matter of removing the failing
> Assert(). I'll do a bit more testing and confirm.
Not looking at the code right now either, but removing that assert and
then removing the TABLESAMPLE clause, the query returns identical
results with and without pruning, so maybe you're right. No time for
further looking now.
(SELECT 'Jaime' <> 'Jamie' COLLATE es_EC)
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-30 23:26:32 | Re: Recovery performance of standby for multiple concurrent truncates on large tables |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-07-30 23:00:35 | Re: Avoid extra Sort nodes between WindowAggs when sorting can be reused |