On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi > <rajkumar.raghuwan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> OK, committed. This is a good example of how having good code >>> coverage doesn't necessarily mean you've found all the bugs. :-) >>> >> As of now partition_join.sql is not having test cases covering cases >> where partition table have default partition, attaching a small test >> case patch to cover those. > > That's not that small, and to me it looks like overkill. >
I agree, the patch looks longer than expected. I think, it's important to have some testcases to test partition-wise join with default partitions. I think we need at least one test for range default partitions, one test for list partitioning, one for multi-level partitioning and one negative testcase with default partition missing from one side of join. May be we could reduce the number of SQL commands and queries in the patch by adding default partition to every table that participates in partition-wise join (leave the tables participating in negative tests aside.). But that's going to increase the size of EXPLAIN outputs and query results. The negative test may simply drop the default partition from one of the tables. For every table being tested, the patch adds two ALTER TABLE commands, one for detaching an existing partition and then attach the same as default partition. Alternative to that is just add a new default partition without detaching and existing partition. But then the default partition needs to populated with some data, which requires 1 INSERT statement at least. That doesn't reduce the size of patch, but increases the output of query and EXPLAIN plan. May be in case of multi-level partitioning test, we don't need to add DEFAULT in every partitioned relation; adding to one of them would be enough. May be add it to the parent, but that too can be avoided. That would reduce the size of patch a bit. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
