From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
Date: | 2018-02-27 16:05:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob1N7j0kxho-EpKp0R=LGJxH=LdE-Qj8nu=cxfAX7dzxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> You may say that partition bounds might have to be different too in this
> case and hence partition-wise join won't occur anyway, but I'm wondering
> if the mismatch of partcollation itself isn't enough to conclude that?
Yeah, you're right. I think that this is just a bug in partition-wise
join, and that the partition scheme should just be using partcollation
instead of parttypcoll, as in the attached.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
partition-scheme-collation.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?= | 2018-02-27 16:27:39 | Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-02-27 15:54:04 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently |