On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2018/02/09 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme, >>> which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out >>> that portion of the patch. That is, the changes to PartitionScheme struct >>> definition and those to find_partition_scheme(). >> >> I am not sure whether a patch with just that change and without any >> changes to use that member will be acceptable. So leaving this aside. > > I asked, because with everything that I have now changed in the partition > pruning patch, one would need to pass these FmgrInfo pointers down to > partition bound searching functions from the optimizer. If the changes to > add partsupfunc to the optimizer were taken out from your main patch, the > pruning patch could just start using it. For now, I'm making those > changes part of the pruning patch.
That's fine. Someone's patch will be committed first and the other will just take out those changes. But I am open to separate those changes into other patch if a committer feels so. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
