Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:11:53 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Runtime pruning problem
Message-ID: <20190912141153.GA31190@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8056.1564527407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jul-30, Tom Lane wrote:

> I wrote:
> > This may be arguing for a change in ruleutils' existing behavior,
> > not sure.  But when dealing with traditional-style inheritance,
> > I've always thought that Vars above the Append were referring to
> > the parent rel in its capacity as the parent, not in its capacity
> > as the first child.  With new-style partitioning drawing a clear
> > distinction between the parent and all its children, it's easier
> > to understand the difference.
> 
> OK, so experimenting, I see that it is a change: [...]

> The portion of this below the Append is fine, but I argue that
> the Vars above the Append should say "part", not "part_p1".
> In that way they'd look the same regardless of which partitions
> have been pruned or not.

So is anyone working on a patch to use this approach?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services