On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:59 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:41 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > > Maybe, we should also updated the description of node struct as
> > > follows to consider that last point:
> >>
> > > * Partition
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:41 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Maybe, we should also updated the description of node struct as
> > follows to consider that last point:
>>
> > * PartitionPruneStepOp - Information to prune using a set of mutually ANDed
>
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote wrote:
> + * These partition pruning steps come in 2 forms; operation steps and combine
> + * steps.
>
> Maybe you meant "operator" steps? IIRC, the reason why we named it
> PartitionPruneStepOp is that an op step is built to prune based on the
> semantic
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:34 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 00:49, Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > Thanks David. Actually, I was busy updating the patch to revert to
> > gen_partprune_steps_internal() returning a list and was almost done
> > with it when I saw your message.
> >
> > I
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 00:49, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Thanks David. Actually, I was busy updating the patch to revert to
> gen_partprune_steps_internal() returning a list and was almost done
> with it when I saw your message.
>
> I read through v3 and can say that it certainly looks better than v2
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:53 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:43 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > > However, it does change the meaning of what PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_STEPS
> > > does. If we ever needed to expand what PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 21:53, David Rowley wrote:
> > If canonicalize_qual() had been unable to rewrite that WHERE clause
> > then I could see that we might want to combine steps from other
> > recursive quals. I'm thinking right now that I'm gl
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 21:53, David Rowley wrote:
> If canonicalize_qual() had been unable to rewrite that WHERE clause
> then I could see that we might want to combine steps from other
> recursive quals. I'm thinking right now that I'm glad
> canonicalize_qual() does that hard work for us. (I thi
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:43 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > However, it does change the meaning of what PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_STEPS
> > does. If we ever needed to expand what PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_STEPS does,
> > then we'll have less flexibility with the newl
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:43 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 19:03, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:46 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > I had updated the patch last week to address Horiguchi-san's comments
> > > but didn't manage to post a polished-enough version
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 19:03, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > 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 hav
Hi Ryan,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 2:24 AM Ryan Lambert wrote:
> Should the status of this patch be updated to ready for comitter to get in
> line for Pg 14 deadline?
Yes, I've done that. Thanks for the reminder.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Should the status of this patch be updated to ready for comitter to get in
line for Pg 14 deadline?
*Ryan Lambert*
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 11:38 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:50 AM Ryan Lambert
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:03 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sor
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:50 AM Ryan Lambert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:03 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>>
>> 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 p
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:03 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> 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.
>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:46 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:05 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:26 AM Andy Fan wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think we should remove this duplicative logic and return the
> >>> ge
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
The original patch still applies and passes make installcheck-world. An
Hi Andy,
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:05 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:26 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I think we should remove this duplicative logic and return the
>>> generated steps in a list from this function, which the code
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:26 AM Andy Fan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:56 PM Andy Fan wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi:
>> >
>> > I found the following code in gen_partprune_steps_internal, which
>> > looks the if-statement to
At Wed, 14 Oct 2020 11:26:33 +0800, Andy Fan wrote
in
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote
> 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"
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:56 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > I found the following code in gen_partprune_steps_internal, which
> > looks the if-statement to be always true since list_length(results) > 1;
> > I added an Assert
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:56 PM Andy Fan wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I found the following code in gen_partprune_steps_internal, which
> looks the if-statement to be always true since list_length(results) > 1;
> I added an Assert(step_ids != NIL) and all the test cases passed.
> if the if-statement
Hi:
I found the following code in gen_partprune_steps_internal, which
looks the if-statement to be always true since list_length(results) > 1;
I added an Assert(step_ids != NIL) and all the test cases passed.
if the if-statement is always true, shall we remove it to avoid confusion?
gen_part
23 matches
Mail list logo
