Re: Potential partition pruning regression on PostgreSQL 18 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: Potential partition pruning regression on PostgreSQL 18
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs4-gsKrhs9attotkw1eRNC3oFeB8damkO04_iukULWF=5g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Potential partition pruning regression on PostgreSQL 18  (Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the more formal patches for HEAD and for v18.
>
> In the HEAD patch, I renamed strip_phvs_in_index_operand() to
> strip_noop_phvs() and moved it from indxpath.c to placeholder.c, since
> it is now a general-purpose utility used by both index matching and
> partition pruning code.
>
> However, since strip_phvs_in_index_operand() is an extern function
> declared in a public header, I'm worried that third-party extensions
> may have started calling it after it was introduced in ad66f705f.  So
> for the v18 back-patch, I retained strip_phvs_in_index_operand() in
> indxpath.c as a thin wrapper around the new strip_noop_phvs(), to
> avoid breaking such extensions in a minor release.
>
> Does this seem like reasonable caution, or is it overkill given how
> recently the function was introduced?

I prefer to be cautious, so I've committed the patches as-is.

- Richard



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Date:
Subject: Re: Upload only the failed tests logs to the Postgres CI (Cirrus CI)
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Centralised architecture detection