Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Khandekar
Subject Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Date
Msg-id CAJ3gD9cViv4PMzs7m0tcoec1fqQ7ohACqXEYwnP6VYPurLNTCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 13 September 2017 at 15:32, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/09/11 18:56, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Attached updated patch does it that way for both partitioned table indexes
>> and leaf partition indexes.  Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> It seems to me we don't really need the first patch all that much.  That
> is, let's keep PartitionDispatchData the way it is for now, since we don't
> really have any need for it beside tuple-routing (EIBO as committed didn't
> need it for one).  So, let's forget about "decoupling
> RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo() from the executor" thing for now and
> move on.
>
> So, attached is just the patch to make RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo()
> traverse the partition tree in depth-first manner to be applied on HEAD.
>
> Thoughts?

+1. If at all we need the decoupling later for some reason, we can do
that incrementally.

Will review your latest patch by tomorrow.


-- 
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company


-- 
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: Christoph Berg
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes