| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |
| Date: | 2019-05-14 04:29:33 |
| Message-ID: | 600c2e75-6e89-9123-128e-051f54066030@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019/05/14 13:23, Amit Langote wrote:
> Tom
> strongly objected to that idea saying that such join paths are kind of
> silly [1], even outside the context of partitionwise join. He suggested
> that we abandon partitionwise join in such cases, because having to build
> a dummy base relation for pruned partitions only to generate silly-looking
> paths would be an ugly kludge.
I forgot to mention that he even committed a patch to disable
partitionwise joins in such cases, which was also applied to v11 branch.
Note that there were also other reasons for committing, beside what I
described in my previous email.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-14 04:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-14 04:28:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup |