Amit-san, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Rebased patches attached.
I could only do the code review of v36-0001. On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:35 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2019/03/23 6:07, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes: > >> [ v34 patch set ] > > > > I had a bit of a look through this. I went ahead and pushed 0008 and > > 0009, as they seem straightforward and independent of the rest. (BTW, > > 0009 makes 0003's dubious optimization in set_relation_partition_info > > quite unnecessary.) As for the rest: > > > > 0001: OK in principle, but I wonder why you implemented it by adding > > another recursive scan of the jointree rather than just iterating > > over the baserel array, as in make_one_rel() for instance. Seems > > like this way is more work, and more code that we'll have to touch > > if we ever change the jointree representation. > > I've changed this to work by iterating over baserel array. I was mostly > worried about looping over potentially many elements of baserel array that > we simply end up skipping, but considering the other patch that delays > adding inheritance children, we don't need to worry about that. > > > I also feel like you used a dartboard while deciding where to insert the > > call in query_planner(); dropping it into the middle of a sequence of > > equivalence-class-related operations seems quite random. Maybe we could > > delay that step all the way to just before make_one_rel, since the other > > stuff in between seems to only care about baserels? For example, > > it'd certainly be better if we could run remove_useless_joins before > > otherrel expansion, so that we needn't do otherrel expansion at all > > on a table that gets thrown away as being a useless join. > > create_lateral_join_info() expects otherrels to be present to propagate > the information it creates. > > I have moved add_other_rels_to_query() followed by > create_lateral_join_info() to just before make_one_rel(). I checked 0001 patch modifies the thing which is discussed above correctly. What problem I only found is a little typo. s/propgated/propagated/ I'm really sorry for my shortage of time to review for now... -- Yoshikazu Imai
