On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 03:40:48PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (I think that at least currently, there is no need for the Gather and
> GatherMerge cases in reparameterize_path_by_child, but I don't object to
> keeping those as-is there.)
Let's keep them. As far as my understanding goes, which i
(2018/07/27 4:50), Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
because we currently don't consider gathering partial child-scan or
child-join paths. I think we might consider that in future, though.
You generally want to put the Gather node as high up in the pla
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> because we currently don't consider gathering partial child-scan or
> child-join paths. I think we might consider that in future, though.
You generally want to put the Gather node as high up in the plan tree
as possible. I think the only c
(2018/07/19 14:11), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Yes that's right. Thanks for taking care of it.
Okay, I have pushed a fix for this one as that's wrong and
back-patched to v11. T
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:22:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Good catch. Those should be backpatched. While I am looking at this
>> stuff, I have noticed that pathnode.c/reparameterize_path_by_child uses
>> T_MergeAppend and not T_
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:41:10AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> I had extensive testcases in my original patch-set to exercise that
>> code but 1. that testset was too extensive; even today
>> partition_join.sql is a separate testcase a
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:41:10AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I had extensive testcases in my original patch-set to exercise that
> code but 1. that testset was too extensive; even today
> partition_join.sql is a separate testcase and it's quite large. 2.
> that function returns NULL rather tha
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> Yes that's right. Thanks for taking care of it.
>
> Okay, I have pushed a fix for this one as that's wrong and
> back-patched to v11. The coverage of reparameterize_path_by
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:22:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good catch. Those should be backpatched. While I am looking at this
> stuff, I have noticed that pathnode.c/reparameterize_path_by_child uses
> T_MergeAppend and not T_MergeAppendPath.
Okay, I have checked the full list of path n
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Yes that's right. Thanks for taking care of it.
Okay, I have pushed a fix for this one as that's wrong and
back-patched to v11. The coverage of reparameterize_path_by_child is
actually quite poor if you look at the reports:
https:/
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15:25PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:35:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While debugging planner I realized that print_path() function is not
>>> aware of both Gath
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:35:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While debugging planner I realized that print_path() function is not
>> aware of both GatherMerge path and CustomScan path. Attached small
>> patch fixes it.
>
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:35:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While debugging planner I realized that print_path() function is not
> aware of both GatherMerge path and CustomScan path. Attached small
> patch fixes it.
Good catch. Those should be backpatched. While I am looking at t
13 matches
Mail list logo
