Hi Ashutosh, Etsuro, Robert, On 2018-06-22 10:58:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Etsuro Fujita > <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Here is a patch for that. > > > > * As I said upthread, the patch makes code much more simple; I removed all > > the changes to setrefs.c added by the partitionwise-join patch. I also > > simplified the logic for building a tlist for a child-join rel. The original > > PWJ computes attr_needed data even for child rels, and build the tlist for a > > child-join by passing to build_joinrel_tlist that data for input child rels > > for the child-join. But I think that's redundant, and it's more > > straightforward to apply adjust_appendrel_attrs to the parent-join's tlist > > to get the child-join's tlist. So, I changed that way, which made > > unnecessary all the changes to build_joinrel_tlist and placeholder.c added > > by the PWJ patch, so I removed those as well. > > > > * The patch contains all of the regression tests in the original patch > > proposed by Ashutosh. > > I think this approach is going to run into trouble if the level at > which we have to apply the ConvertRowTypeExpr happens not to be a > projection-capable node.
What's the plan forward here? This has been an open item for quite a while. Robert, are you in agreement with this approach on a high level? Who is going to drive this forward? Greetings, Andres Freund
