Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't understand why you think that partition-wise join needs any
> new logic here; if this were a non-partitionwise join, we'd similarly
> need to use the correct operator, but the existing code handles that
> just fine. If the join is performed partition-wise, it should use the
> same operators that would have been used by a non-partitionwise join
> between the same tables.
More to the point, the appropriate operator was chosen by parse analysis.
The planner has *zero* flexibility as to which operator is involved.
BTW, I remain totally mystified as to what people think the semantics of
partitioning ought to be. Child columns can have a different type from
parent columns? Really? Why is this even under discussion? We don't
allow that in old-school inheritance, and I cannot imagine a rational
argument why partitioning should allow it.
regards, tom lane
