Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm.. you are right. Done.

I don't see a reason to hold off on committing 0002 and 0003, so I've
done that now; since they are closely related changes, I pushed them
as a single commit. It probably could've just been included in the
main patch, but it's fine.

I don't much like the code that 0001 refactors and am not keen to
propagate it into more places. I've separately proposed patches to
restructure that code in
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoakT5gmahbPWGqrR2nAdFOMAOnOXYoWHRdVfGWs34t6_A@mail.gmail.com
and if we end up deciding to adopt that approach then I think this
patch will also need to create rels for UPPERREL_TLIST. I suspect
that approach would also remove the need for 0004, as that case would
also end up being handled in a different way. However, the jury is
still out on whether or not the approach I've proposed there is any
good. Feel free to opine over on that thread.

I'm going to go spend some time looking at 0005 next. It looks to me
like it's generally going in a very promising direction, but I need to
study the details more.

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