Hi Andy,
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:15 PM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:16 PM Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/5/20 10:38 PM, Andy Fan wrote:
>> > Currently the UniqueKey is defined as a List of Expr, rather than
>> > EquivalenceClasses.
>> > A complete discussion until now can be found at [1] (The messages I replied
>> > to also
>> > care a lot and the information is completed). This patch has stopped at
>> > this place for
>> > a while, I'm planning to try EquivalenceClasses, but any suggestion would
>> > be welcome.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately I think we need a RfC style patch of both versions in
>> their minimum implementation.
>>
>> Hopefully this will make it easier for one or more committers to decide
>> on the right direction since they can do a side-by-side comparison of
>> the two solutions.
>>
>
> I do get the exact same idea. Actually I have made EquivalenceClasses
> works with baserel last weekend and then I realized it is hard to compare
> the 2 situations without looking into the real/Poc code, even for very
> experienced people. I will submit a new patch after I get the partitioned
> relation, subquery works. Hope I can make it in one week.
Status update for a commitfest entry.
Are you planning to submit a new patch? Or is there any blocker for
this work? This patch entry on CF app has been in state Waiting on
Author for a while. If there is any update on that, please reflect on
CF app.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
