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

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=0EvDYJFVYOSZuOBF52F3D2Df35Vij7ehm5nDpQ4ohSGQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the overall patch set:
>
> - I am curious to know how this has been tested.  How much of the new
> code is covered by the tests in 0007-Partition-wise-join-tests.patch?
> How much does coverage improve with
> 0008-Extra-testcases-for-partition-wise-join-NOT-FOR-COMM.patch?  What
> code, if any, is not covered by either of those test suites?  Could we
> do meaningful testing of this with something like Andreas
> Seltenreich's sqlsmith?

FWIW I'm working on an answer to both of those question, but keep
getting distracted by other things catching on fire...

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
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: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with alot of columns
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256