From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wired if-statement in gen_partprune_steps_internal |
Date: | 2021-04-08 11:58:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFCKm9krnke1b8+M5z9dnam=vD4oxDPHe1qJLO-rLahcg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:41 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Maybe, we should also updated the description of node struct as
> > follows to consider that last point:
>>
> > * PartitionPruneStepOp - Information to prune using a set of mutually ANDed
> > * OpExpr and any IS [ NOT ] NULL clauses
>
> I didn't add that. I wasn't really sure if I understood why we'd talk
> about PartitionPruneStepCombine in the PartitionPruneStepOp. I thought
> the overview in gen_partprune_steps_internal was ok to link the two
> together and explain why they're both needed.
Sorry, maybe the way I wrote it was a bit confusing, but I meant to
suggest that we do what I have quoted above from my last email. That
is, we should clarify in the description of PartitionPruneStepOp that
it contains information derived from OpExprs and in some cases also IS
[ NOT ] NULL clauses.
Thanks for the commit.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-04-08 12:00:59 | Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-08 11:58:42 | Re: Simplify backend terminate and wait logic in postgres_fdw test |