| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ilya Gladyshev <ilya(dot)v(dot)gladyshev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2023-03-25 17:11:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2614195.1679764277@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's why I wanted list_length() not list_length() - 1. We are
>> doing *something* at the top partitioned table, it just doesn't
>> involve a table scan, so I don't find this totally unreasonable.
>> If you agree we are doing work at intermediate partitioned tables,
>> how are we not doing work at the top one?
> What you're proposing would redefine the meaning of
> PARTITIONS_DONE/TOTAL, even in the absence of intermediate partitioned
> tables. Which might be okay, but the scope of this thread/patch was to
> fix the behavior involving intermediate partitioned tables.
I'm a little skeptical of that argument, because this patch is already
redefining the meaning of PARTITIONS_TOTAL. The fact that the existing
documentation is vague enough to be read either way doesn't make it not
a change.
Still, in the interests of getting something done I'll drop the issue.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-03-25 18:16:28 | Re: Bug with ICU for merge join |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-25 16:57:17 | Re: hio.c does visibilitymap_pin()/IO while holding buffer lock |