Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> As promised, here is the idea I was thinking of, although I'm no longer
> confident you will like it based on your previous emails on this thread.
> I was thinking of having a walker function that traverses the list of
> *clauses* that were passed to make_partition_pruneinfo(), which puts the
> paramids into an output context struct, with separate Bitmapsets for
> PARAM_EXTERN and PARAM_EXEC parameters. In addition to running this
> walker, also do a contain_mutable_functions() pass over the clauses. (I
> can already hear a big no at this point!) As you might've guessed, the
> result of those two steps would decide whether we need to do the the extra
> gen_partprune_steps() steps. Fwiw, I prototyped it in the attached patch
> which applies on top of yours.
Actually, yeah, my thoughts about future development were to split up
the gen_partprune_steps processing to avoid the duplicated work.
I've not read your patch yet but this sounds like the same idea.
What I'm worried about is if it's too much code churn for a
back-patchable bug fix.
regards, tom lane
