Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqEHax3rktJxyf==CunhBeuP_vWnS6ypz=ajUnhUPaVg8w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:07 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 20:25, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Related to the above, I noticed while looking at
> > build_merged_partition_bounds() that db632fbca3 missed adding a line
> > to that function to set interleaved_parts to NULL.  Because the
> > PartitionBoundInfo is only palloc'd (not palloc0'd), interleaved_parts
> > of a "merged" bounds struct ends up pointing to garbage, so let's fix
> > that.  Attached a patch.
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> I think we also need to document that interleaved_parts is not set for
> join relations, otherwise someone may in the future try to use that
> field for an optimisation for join relations.  At the moment, per
> generate_orderedappend_paths, we only handle IS_SIMPLE_REL type
> relations.
>
> I've attached a patch that updates the comments to mention this.

Looks good to me.  Thanks.

-- 
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side