On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:05:41PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I'd categorise this one the same as I have #1 above, i.e. not
> backpatch material. It seems like something useful to look into for
> v12 though. I assumed this was done for a reason and that I just
> didn't understand what that reason was. I don't recall any comments to
> explain the reason why we build two RangeTblEntrys for each
> partitioned table.
I agree. Please let's keep v11 stable, and discuss further more on
future optimizations like the previous two items for v12, which has
plenty of time to be broken.
> In light of what Amit has highlighted, I'm still standing by the v3
> patch assuming the typo is fixed.
Yeah. Actually I'd like to add a test as well to test the recursion
call of expand_partitioned_rtentry. If you have an idea, please let me
know or I'll figure out one by myself and add it probably in
create_table.sql.
--
Michael
