Re: path toward faster partition pruning

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
> wrote:

> On 2017/09/27 1:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen
> > <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be
> >> merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest
> >> entries doesn't account for hash partitions at the moment in their
> method
> >> signatures; Beena noted something similar in [2]. I know that you said
> >> otherwise [3], but this is CommitFest 1, so there is time for a revert
> >> later, and hash partitions are already useful in internal testing.
> >
> > Well, that's a fair point. I was assuming that committing things in
> > that order would cause me to win the "least popular committer" award
> > at least for that day, but maybe not. It's certainly not ideal to
> > have to juggle that patch along and keep rebasing it over other
> > changes when it's basically done, and just waiting on other
> > improvements to land. Anybody else wish to express an opinion?
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree that it would be nice to get the hash partitioning
> patch in, even with old constraint exclusion based partition-pruning not
> working for hash partitions. That way, it might be more clear what we
> need to do in the partition-pruning patches to account for hash partitions.
>
​
+1

regards,
Amul​