From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:12:48 -0400
Message-ID: <20210421221248.GA31877@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210410184226.GY6592@telsasoft.com>
On 2021-Apr-10, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> If it *implies* the partition constraint, then it's at least as tight (and
> maybe tighter), yes ?
>
> I think you're concerned with the case that someone has a partition with
> "tight" bounds like (a>=200 and a<300) and a check constraint that's "less
> tight" like (a>=100 AND a<400). In that case, the loose check constraint
> doesn't imply the tighter partition constraint, so your patch would add a
> non-redundant constraint.
... yeah, you're right, we can do as you suggest and it seems an
improvement. I verified, as is obvious in hindsight, that the existing
constraint makes a future ATTACH of the partition with the same bounds
as before not scan the partition.
I pushed the patch with a small change:
PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint wants the constraint in
implicit-AND form (that is, a list) which is what we already have, so we
can postpone make_ands_explicit() until later.
Pushed, thanks,
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pryzby@telsasoft.com, amitlangote09@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
In-Reply-To: <20210421221248.GA31877@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox