Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date
Msg-id 4417.1523072482@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Sounds like you're saying that if we have too many alternative files
> then there's a chance that one could pass by luck.

Yeah, exactly: it passed, but did it pass for the right reason?

If there's just two expected-files, it's likely not a big problem,
but if you have a bunch it's something to worry about.

I'm also wondering how come we had hash partitioning before and
did not have this sort of problem.  Is it just that we added a
new test that's more sensitive to the details of the hashing
(if so, could it be made less so)?  Or is there actually more
platform dependence now than before (and if so, why is that)?

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning