On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:46 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:05 PM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:26 AM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I think we should remove this duplicative logic and return the > >>> generated steps in a list from this function, which the code in > >>> gen_partprune_steps_internal() then "combines" using an INTERSECT > >>> step. See attached a patch to show what I mean. > >>> > >> > >> This changes LGTM, and "make check" PASSED, thanks for the patch! > >> > > > > I created https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2771/ so that this patch > > will not > > be lost. Thanks! > > Thanks for doing that. > > I had updated the patch last week to address Horiguchi-san's comments > but didn't manage to post a polished-enough version. I will try again > this week.
Sorry, this seems to have totally slipped my mind. Attached is the patch I had promised. Also, I have updated the title of the CF entry to "Some cosmetic improvements of partition pruning code", which I think is more appropriate. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v2-0001-Cosmetic-improvements-to-partition-pruning-step-g.patch
Description: Binary data
