On 2017/11/29 0:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I am out of time for today but will try to look at this some more tomorrow.
>
> Upon closer study this seems to definitely be a correct fix, so I have
> committed it. Apologies for my earlier confusio
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I am out of time for today but will try to look at this some more tomorrow.
Upon closer study this seems to definitely be a correct fix, so I have
committed it. Apologies for my earlier confusion.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.ent
Horiguchi-san, thanks for the clarifying comment.
On 2017/11/27 18:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:49:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
>> OK, so I am still confused about whether the constraint is wrong or
>> the constraint exclusion logic is wrong. One of them, at least, has
>>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> This is the story in my understanding.
Thanks, that's helpful. Sorry I didn't have time yet to study this in
detail myself. If we're routing tuples to a partition for which the
partition constraint is evaluating to null, that's OK, but
At Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:49:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >>> If all predicate_refuted_by() receives is the expression tree (AND/OR)
> >>> with individual nodes being strict clauses involving partition keys (and
> >>> nothing about the n
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>> If all predicate_refuted_by() receives is the expression tree (AND/OR)
>>> with individual nodes being strict clauses involving partition keys (and
>>> nothing about the nullness of the keys), the downstream code is just
>>> playing by the r
On 2017/11/22 6:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
The attached will make the constraint to look like:
>>>
>>> Uh, if the constraint exclusion logic we're using is drawing false
>>> conclusions, we need to fix it so it doesn't, not change the
>>> c
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>> The attached will make the constraint to look like:
>>
>> Uh, if the constraint exclusion logic we're using is drawing false
>> conclusions, we need to fix it so it doesn't, not change the
>> constraint so that the wrong logic gives the righ
On 2017/11/18 8:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> While working on the patch for partition pruning for declarative
>> partitioned tables, I noticed that default range partition will fail to be
>> included in a plan in certain cases due to pruning b
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> While working on the patch for partition pruning for declarative
> partitioned tables, I noticed that default range partition will fail to be
> included in a plan in certain cases due to pruning by constraint exclusion.
> you'll notice that i
Hi.
While working on the patch for partition pruning for declarative
partitioned tables, I noticed that default range partition will fail to be
included in a plan in certain cases due to pruning by constraint exclusion.
Consider a multi-column range-partitioned table:
create table mc2p (a int, b
11 matches
Mail list logo
