| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy |
| Date: | 2024-02-20 03:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | 312fb507-9b5e-cf83-d8ed-cd0da72a902c@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hello David,
19.02.2024 02:49, David Rowley wrote:
>
> Here's a more complete patch for this. I included some tests for LIST
> and RANGE partitioned tables. I did manual testing for HASH, and was
> on the fence about covering that too.
>
Thank you for the fix!
Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
get_matching_range_bounds().
Above that function we have:
* 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.
But as we could see, zero opstrategy is not valid for the function (so
"if non-zero" is meaningless here?), unlike opstrategy for
get_matching_list_bounds(), which has the same description, but the latter
function contains:
/* Special case handling of values coming from a <> operator clause. */
if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)
...
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-02-20 03:50:25 | Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-19 17:22:33 | Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL); |