Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427716335AF
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:12:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 53419-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:12:13 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A80B6326FF
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:12:13 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3GNCBiE007164;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? 
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSO.4.64.0904161836540.11937@leary.csoft.net> 
References: <Pine.BSO.4.64.0904161836540.11937@leary.csoft.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:09:37 -0400"
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:12:11 -0400
Message-ID: <7163.1239923531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.41 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.41
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200904/281
X-Sequence-Number: 33648

Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> PG (8.3.7) doesn't seem to want to do a hash join across two partitioned 
> tables.

Could we see the whole declaration of these tables?  (pg_dump -s output
would be convenient)

			regards, tom lane