| From: | Damir Ciganović-Janković <damir(dot)ciganovic(dot)jankovic(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15779: Partition elimination doesn't work as expected when using PARTITION BY RANGE |
| Date: | 2019-04-28 17:32:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+-2sJ6SuBmmK929-JZJrzv6xyWxyEdKLyOuO6Ywwy-+AkC3DA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Ok, cool. Thanks for your effort :)
ned, 28. tra 2019. 17:50 Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> je napisao:
> Hi Damir,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:32 PM Damir Ciganović-Janković
> <damir(dot)ciganovic(dot)jankovic(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > About those improvements you are mentioning, have you maybe alaready
> created a task/issue on them? So that I can track it and do the upgrade
> once the version with these improvements goes out
>
> No, I haven't sent any proposal for that yet. Maybe you know, but
> development is done by sending design proposals and associated patches
> to the pgsql-hackers mailing list. The only way to track what's being
> developed is to subscribe to that mailing list and follow discussion
> threads of topics that are of interest to you. You're always welcome
> to participate in those discussions if you have ideas, review comments
> on the design, patches, etc.
>
> I may propose improvements to the pruning logic when the next
> development cycle begins a few months later. I don't know if I will
> remember to reply here to remind you to follow the development.
>
> Thanks,
> Amit
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2019-04-28 21:38:30 | Re: BUG #15706: Support Services page out of date,Re: BUG #15706: Support Services page out of date |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-28 15:50:35 | Re: BUG #15779: Partition elimination doesn't work as expected when using PARTITION BY RANGE |