Re: executor relation handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: executor relation handling
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f_28h0FPVjqn7yX+m-9CtvkhC1E_oTtjsMp0dRmCzLyrQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: executor relation handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: executor relation handling  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Re: executor relation handling  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 8 October 2018 at 13:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The idea I had in mind was to allow hard pruning of any leaf that's
> been excluded *at plan time* based on partition constraints seen in
> its parent rel(s).  That should be safe enough as long as we take
> locks on all the non-leaf rels --- then we'd know about any change
> in the constraint situation.
>
> Rather than coping with renumbering the RTEs, it might be easiest
> to invent an "RTE_DUMMY" RTE type that a hard-pruned RTE could be
> changed to.

The problem with that is that, if we get [1] done in PG12, then the
RTE_DUMMYs would not exist, as we'd only have RTEs in the range table
for partitions that survived plan-time pruning.

It also leaves a problem to solve in the unneeded locks being taken on
partitions for PREPAREd queries using run-time pruning.

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/20/1778/

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: executor relation handling
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Small performance tweak to run-time partition pruning