On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 5:20 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 19:58, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, the ExecLockRelsInfo node in the current patch, that first gets
> > added to the QueryDesc and subsequently to the EState of the query,
> > serves as that stashing place. Not sure if you've looked at
> > ExecLockRelInfo in detail in your review of the patch so far, but it
> > carries the initial pruning result in what are called
> > PlanInitPruningOutput nodes, which are stored in a list in
> > ExecLockRelsInfo and their offsets in the list are in turn stored in
> > an adjacent array that contains an element for every plan node in the
> > tree. If we go with a PlannedStmt.partpruneinfos list, then maybe we
> > don't need to have that array, because the Append/MergeAppend nodes
> > would be carrying those offsets by themselves.
>
> I saw it, just not in great detail. I saw that you had an array that
> was indexed by the plan node's ID. I thought that wouldn't be so good
> with large complex plans that we often get with partitioning
> workloads. That's why I mentioned using another index that you store
> in Append/MergeAppend that starts at 0 and increments by 1 for each
> node that has a PartitionPruneInfo made for it during create_plan.
>
> > Maybe a different name for ExecLockRelsInfo would be better?
> >
> > Also, given Tom's apparent dislike for carrying that in PlannedStmt,
> > maybe the way I have it now is fine?
>
> I think if you change how it's indexed and the other stuff then we can
> have another look. I think the patch will be much easier to review
> once the ParitionPruneInfos are moved into PlannedStmt.
Will do, thanks.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
