| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2017-09-15 21:38:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=0EvDYJFVYOSZuOBF52F3D2Df35Vij7ehm5nDpQ4ohSGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On the overall patch set:
>
> - I am curious to know how this has been tested. How much of the new
> code is covered by the tests in 0007-Partition-wise-join-tests.patch?
> How much does coverage improve with
> 0008-Extra-testcases-for-partition-wise-join-NOT-FOR-COMM.patch? What
> code, if any, is not covered by either of those test suites? Could we
> do meaningful testing of this with something like Andreas
> Seltenreich's sqlsmith?
FWIW I'm working on an answer to both of those question, but keep
getting distracted by other things catching on fire...
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-15 22:29:31 | Re: [JDBC] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-15 21:33:34 | Re: SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns |