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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoasbKBGf_TiQAh-F9WThRCHtmHRQfBY9YK8Asnd8kPJhw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that
> wasn't based on a valid assumption.  I was wrongly assuming that all hash
> partitions for a given modulus (largest modulus) must exist at any given
> time, but that isn't the case.

Committed 0003 with some adjustments:

* Renamed the new test to partition_prune.
* Moved the test to what I thought was a better place in the schedule
file, and made it consistent between serial_schedule and
parallel_schedule.
* commutates -> commuted
* removed wrong /* empty */ comment
* Updated expected output.  It surprised me a bit that the tests
weren't passing as you had them, but the differences I got - all
related to mc3p_default - seemed correct to me

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Unclear regression test for postgres_fdw
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++