From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Edmund Horner <ejrh00(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Calculate total_table_pages after set_base_rel_sizes() |
Date: | 2018-10-12 22:35:55 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_VTcHAYRknBuK9guJqQBsQ+cgCbhgUfeDAQR5Za3NdNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 October 2018 at 23:35, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/10/11 13:45, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/10/07 17:43, David Rowley wrote:
>>> Amit Langote has since posted a patch to delay the RangeTblEntry
>>> creation until after pruning. His patch happens to also move the
>>> total_table_pages calculation, but I believe this change should be
>>> made as an independent commit to anything else. I've kept it in the
>>> commitfest for that reason.
>>
>> Yeah, if this patch is a win independent of the other project of delaying
>> partition RTE creation, which seems to be true, I think we should go ahead
>> with applying this patch.
>
> Fwiw, I've incorporated David's patch in my own series, so that one of my
> patches no longer has the code movement hunks that are in his. I will
> post the new version of my patch series like that.
Thanks. I'll keep this open here anyway so the change can be
considered independently. I think counting pages of pruned partitions
is a bug that should be fixed. You can just drop that patch from your
set if this gets committed.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-12 22:43:55 | Re: Calculate total_table_pages after set_base_rel_sizes() |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-12 22:32:31 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |