Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 15:49:15 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
	Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: extended stats on partitioned tables
Message-ID: <20211212214915.GQ17618@telsasoft.com>
References: <20211007202646.GA9522@ahch-to>
 <20211007224543.GH27491@telsasoft.com>
 <46f37069-55cb-db6a-a15a-e351a2606592@enterprisedb.com>
 <20211103231904.GP17618@telsasoft.com>
 <689accb1-76e8-5115-6ed0-336749cdca57@enterprisedb.com>
 <20211203052411.GU17618@telsasoft.com>
 <CALNJ-vQSpBxw-gjZ--p-vo_yr2yHaXXOn_g8i=DQam_aAW3GwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8052505e-2dd2-e8cb-26c9-cbb5dff7d750@enterprisedb.com>
 <20211212175255.GO17618@telsasoft.com>
 <ba3dd29f-6fb1-2bb5-87d7-92b671c79b2a@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ba3dd29f-6fb1-2bb5-87d7-92b671c79b2a@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20211212214915.GQ17618%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:29:39PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 12/12/21 18:52, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> That's mostly a conscious choice, so that I don't have to include
> parsetree.h. But maybe that'd be better ...
> 
> > The regression tests changed as a result of not populating stx_data; I think
> > it's may be better to update like this:
> > 
> > SELECT stxname, stxdndistinct, stxddependencies, stxdmcv, stxoid IS NULL
> >   FROM pg_statistic_ext s LEFT JOIN pg_statistic_ext_data d
> >   ON d.stxoid = s.oid
> >   WHERE s.stxname = 'ab1_a_b_stats';
> > 
> 
> Not sure I understand. Why would this be better than inner join?

It shows that there's an entry in pg_statistic_ext and not one in ext_data,
rather than that it's not in at least one of the catalogs.  Which is nice to
show since as you say it's no longer 1:1.

> Thanks, fixed. Can you read through the commit messages and check the
> attribution is correct for all the patches?

Seems fine.

-- 
Justin