Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ozfrU-0002p9-Db for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:16:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ozfrR-0002Ze-4y for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:15:57 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ozfrQ-0002XT-Pb for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:15:56 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ozfrM-0000Db-5T for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:15:55 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2ASFFoG6554069; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:15:50 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Scott Ribe cc: Pgsql-admin Subject: Re: regression in PG 15.1 In-reply-to: <4B29C00C-028D-43AE-98F8-793BFC461CA5@elevated-dev.com> References: <543106.1669646690@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4B29C00C-028D-43AE-98F8-793BFC461CA5@elevated-dev.com> Comments: In-reply-to Scott Ribe message dated "Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:57:16 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <554067.1669648550.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:15:50 -0500 Message-ID: <554068.1669648550@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Scott Ribe writes: >> On Nov 28, 2022, at 7:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why do you say this is a regression? From what I know of the partition >> pruning logic (admittedly not a whole lot), I don't think we'd have >> ever pruned on the basis of such a constraint. > Because performance of the query tanked. Compared to what? If you said something like "it worked as I expected in Postgres x.y", that would be something to go on. regards, tom lane