| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2018-05-09 02:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20180509022018.GB26879@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 07:05:46PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The reason for this crash is that gen_partprune_steps_internal() is
> unable to generate any steps for the clause -- which is natural, since
> the operator is not in a btree opclass. There are various callers
> of gen_partprune_steps_internal that are aware that it could return an
> empty set of steps, but this one in match_clause_to_partition_key for
> the ScalarArrayOpExpr case was being a bit too optimistic.
Indeed.
While looking at this code, is there any reason to not make
gen_partprune_steps static? This is only used in partprune.c for now,
so the intention is to make it available for future patches?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-05-09 02:22:12 | Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-09 02:06:45 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |