Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYf4Jz94nHK0=1se9ZsyRzVOoOpWFXyeb-tyWqYepfwSg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> About your earlier comment of making build_joinrel_partition_info()
> simpler. Right now, the code assumes that partexprs or
> nullable_partexpr can be NULL when either of them is not populated.
> That may be saves a sizeof(pointer) * (number of keys) byes of memory.
> Saving that much memory may not be worth the complexity of code. So,
> we may always allocate memory for those arrays and fill it with NIL
> values when there are no key expressions to populate those. That will
> simplify the code. I haven't done that change in this patchset. I was
> busy debugging the Q7 regression. Let me know your comments about
> that.

Hmm, I'm not sure that's the best approach, but let me look at it more
carefully before I express a firm opinion.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] hash index on unlogged tables doesn't behave as expected