public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Tender Wang <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Thom Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 15:04:45 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqGBfMgcxokEH_mg6s=ttLFm54dj4hT6yXydU2t0g6oQ3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+HiwqFpZ80UJKr4tZus4Omgg7YESzFXKSwSHRW2Ap2=XSVyUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqHOejJk0_qMuM5g38h70hY_JvHMAKwnH3k=urfTXauPQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqFsGKM82oaMby3VWYXf_XFpDAMeT+6SXgj-45HpTrS1dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqFA5hUWYktt3VMh4zQOYMxqH-MpdX8eemfM+o-9dY-zbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqEn7bbUXaXO=SmUujBjJSHfS31cwQroHRBwT0sR=66bgg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqGGLDTd1ZTK1c0zv4La7XOVSVMqBuNtscJeh6FyUQvFvA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqE2JFiqqrXdyJVQWY-fMGwzDkLqjXQdUKbPaCpDpxd_2g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqFp3jZGSz==QjeuV62_62F6+V6b62=Uqvy99sW_gsgWBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHewXNkUz9XGG8nnoxZaw35e+5bQVVP=eeJE4cW4V2e+P9ndFw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqFKSpfYruzcVz-5CcFxg7gMa+ycXjMa2aPz_J_P4LGXTg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+HiwqEQ1oME-hcDXwC9rGQb=u7MdUFG3Sc=Qg27uH480v10FA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+HiwqGXMLSQyJvynWF40yNwBAx-pXtxemReP8L+C+kaUa5v5A@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqGBfMgcxokEH_mg6s=ttLFm54dj4hT6yXydU2t0g6oQ3g@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/22/25 10:12, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 7:22 PM Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fair enough. I’ll revert this and some related changes shortly. WIP
>> patch attached.
>
> I have pushed out the revert now.
>
Thank you.
> Note that I’ve only reverted the changes related to deferring locks on
> prunable partitions. I’m planning to leave the preparatory commits
> leading up to that one in place unless anyone objects. For reference,
> here they are in chronological order (the last 3 are bug fixes):
>
> bb3ec16e14d Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt
> d47cbf474ec Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode()
> cbc127917e0 Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations
> 75dfde13639 Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly
> cbb9086c9ef Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly
> 28317de723b Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned
>
> I think separating initial pruning from plan node initialization is
> still worthwhile on its own, as evidenced by the improvements in
> cbc127917e.
>
I'm OK with that in principle, assuming the benefits outweigh the risk
of making backpatching harder. The patches don't seem exceptionally
large / invasive, but I don't know how often we modify these parts.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
view thread (114+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox