On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:19 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 04:43, Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > I noticed that the dummy relation is skipped in the loop over > rel->live_parts. > > I wonder if the following change is sensible. > > I made the definition of live_parts to be partitions that survived > partition pruning. There's a few reasons why a RELOPT_BASEREL could > have dummy rels in its live_parts Bitmapset, so I don't see why we > should make an exception and remove them from RELOPT_OTHER_JOINREL. > > If you think we should change the definition of what live_parts is, > then you'd need to come up with a patch that did it for everything. > > However, I don't really think I'm for changing that. We currently set > live_parts for RELOPT_BASEREL just after we perform partition > pruning, so we could well have many bits set in that field for > relations that will become dummy rels later. At what point could code > looking at the live_parts field know that the bits that are set are > never dummy rels? Or would they always just have to check for dummy > rels just in case the bits are not unset for the dummy rels yet? > Seems a bit messy to me. > > David > Hi, Thanks for the reply. We can leave the code as is. Cheers
