Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5t02NnBqF8FWZkkZ=8nu2Z=YaLdFT-3-nb0jROi09gZ+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 11:10 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 9:20 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think there's an unwritten convention that we re/set GUCs nearer the
> > queries which require/exercise those. That way they are visible. The
> > test file is about testing partitionwise join, so it's expected that
> > most of the queries will require PWJ enabled. Seeing
> > enable_partitionwise_join = true in the middle of the file made me
> > think that we are disabling PWJ somewhere before to test disabled PWJ
> > and re-enabling it. But I couldn't find a statement disabling it.
> > After spending some time and going through the original commit which
> > added enable_partitionwise_join = true, I realised that it was not
> > required there. I did that exercise twice, once when writing the patch
> > and once while comparing my patch and your commit. Removing that
> > statement will save somebody the same exercise. But I am ok, if we
> > don't want to remove it.
>
> After looking at it, I agree with your analysis, so I've committed your patch.

Thanks.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix GetOperatorFromCompareType
Next
From: Chao Li
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: optimize replication slot caught-up check