Hosoya-san, On 2019/03/22 15:02, Yuzuko Hosoya wrote: > I understood Amit's proposal. But I think the issue Thibaut reported would > occur regardless of whether clauses have OR clauses or not as follows. > I tested a query which should output "One-Time Filter: false". > > # explain select * from test2_0_20 where id = 25; > QUERY PLAN > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Append (cost=0.00..25.91 rows=6 width=36) > -> Seq Scan on test2_10_20_def (cost=0.00..25.88 rows=6 width=36) > Filter: (id = 25) >
Good catch, thanks. > As Amit described in the previous email, id = 25 contradicts test2_0_20's > partition constraint, so I think this clause should be ignored and we can > also handle this case in the similar way as Amit proposal. > > I attached v1-delta-2.patch which fix the above issue. > > What do you think about it? It looks fine to me. You put the code block to check whether a give clause contradicts the partition constraint in its perfect place. :) Maybe we should have two patches as we seem to be improving two things: 1. Patch to fix problems with default partition pruning originally reported by Hosoya-san 2. Patch to determine if a given clause contradicts a sub-partitioned table's partition constraint, fixing problems unearthed by Thibaut's tests About the patch that Horiguchi-san proposed upthread, I think it has merit that it will make partprune.c code easier to reason about, but I think we should pursue it separately. Thanks, Amit
