Re: why partition pruning doesn't work?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28597.1528900759@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: why partition pruning doesn't work?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > Seems reasonable. Really, I think we should look for a way to hang > onto the relation at the point where it's originally opened and locked > instead of reopening it here. But that's probably more invasive than > we can really justify right at the moment, and I think this is a step > in a good direction. The existing coding there makes me itch a bit, because there's only a rather fragile line of reasoning justifying the assumption that there is a pre-existing lock at all. So I'd be in favor of what you suggest just to get rid of the "open(NoLock)" hazard. But I agree that it'd be rather invasive and right now is probably not the time for it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: