Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrei Lepikhov
Subject Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN
Date
Msg-id a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 16/10/2023 23:21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:24 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> Whenever I visited this idea, I hit one issue prominently - how would
> we differentiate different scans of the non-partitioned relation.
> Normally we do that using different Relids but in this case we
> wouldn't be able to know the number of such relations involved in the
> query unless we start planning such a join. It's late to add new base
> relations and assign them new Relids. Of course I haven't thought hard
> about it. I haven't looked at the patch to see whether this problem is
> solved and how.
> 
I'm curious, which type of problems do you afraid here? Why we need a 
range table entry for each scan of non-partitioned relation?

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}