On 2017/09/27 1:51, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Jesper Pedersen > <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote: >> One could advocate (*cough*) that the hash partition patch [1] should be >> merged first in order to find other instances of where other CommitFest >> entries doesn't account for hash partitions at the moment in their method >> signatures; Beena noted something similar in [2]. I know that you said >> otherwise [3], but this is CommitFest 1, so there is time for a revert >> later, and hash partitions are already useful in internal testing. > > Well, that's a fair point. I was assuming that committing things in > that order would cause me to win the "least popular committer" award > at least for that day, but maybe not. It's certainly not ideal to > have to juggle that patch along and keep rebasing it over other > changes when it's basically done, and just waiting on other > improvements to land. Anybody else wish to express an opinion?
FWIW, I tend to agree that it would be nice to get the hash partitioning patch in, even with old constraint exclusion based partition-pruning not working for hash partitions. That way, it might be more clear what we need to do in the partition-pruning patches to account for hash partitions.
