On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:43 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 01:30, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It seems that the planner currently elides an Append/MergeAppend that > >> has run-time pruning info (part_prune_index) set, but which I think is > >> a bug. > > > There is still the trade-off of having to pull tuples through the > > Append node for when run-time pruning is unable to prune the last > > partition. So your proposal to leave the Append alone when there's > > run-time pruning info is certainly not a no-brainer. > > Yeah. Amit's proposal amounts to optimizing for the case that all > partitions get pruned, which does not seem to me to be the way > to bet. I'm inclined to think it's fine as-is.
Fair enough. I thought for a second that maybe it was simply an oversight but David confirms otherwise. This was interacting badly with the other patch I'm working on and I just figured out the problem was with that other patch. -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
