Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> +1. I think we should just pull out the OIDs from partition descriptor.

Like this? The first patch refactors the expansion of a single child
out into a separate function, and the second patch implements EIBO on
top of it.

I realized while doing this that we really want to expand the
partitioning hierarchy depth-first, not breadth-first. For some
things, like partition-wise join in the case where all bounds match
exactly, we really only need a *predictable* ordering that will be the
same for two equi-partitioned tables. A breadth-first expansion will
give us that. But it's not actually in bound order. For example:

create table foo (a int, b text) partition by list (a);
create table foo1 partition of foo for values in (2);
create table foo2 partition of foo for values in (1) partition by range (b);
create table foo2a partition of foo2 for values from ('b') to ('c');
create table foo2b partition of foo2 for values from ('a') to ('b');
create table foo3 partition of foo for values in (3);

The correct bound-order expansion of this is foo2b - foo2a - foo1 -
foo3, which is indeed what you get with the attached patch. But if we
did the expansion in breadth-first fashion, we'd get foo1 - foo3 -
foo2a, foo2b, which is, well, not in bound order. If the idea is that
you see a > 2 and rule out all partitions that appear before the first
one with an a-value >= 2, it's not going to work.

Mind you, that idea has some problems anyway in the face of default
partitions, null partitions, and list partitions which accept
non-contiguous values (e.g. one partition for 1, 3, 5; another for 2,
4, 6). We might need to mark the PartitionDesc to indicate whether
PartitionDesc-order is in fact bound-order in a particular instance,
or something like that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company