Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

Hi,

On 04/04/2018 09:29 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for updating. I've made a pass over v49 and I didn't find very
> much wrong with it.
> 
> The only real bug I found was a missing IsA(rinfo->clause, Const) in
> the pseudoconstant check inside
> generate_partition_pruning_steps_internal.
> 
> Most of the changes are comment fixes with a few stylistic changes
> thrown which are pretty much all there just to try to shrink the code
> a line or two or reduce indentation.
> 
> I feel pretty familiar with this code now and assuming the attached is
> included I'm happy for someone else, hopefully, a committer to take a
> look at it.
> 
> I'll leave the following notes:
> 
> 1. Still not sure about RelOptInfo->has_default_part. This flag is
> only looked at in generate_partition_pruning_steps. The RelOptInfo and
> the boundinfo is available to look at, it's just that the
> partition_bound_has_default macro is defined in partition.c rather
> than partition.h.
> 
> 2. Don't really like the new isopne variable name. It's not very
> simple to decode, perhaps something like is_not_eq is better?
> 
> 3. The part of the code I'm least familiar with is
> get_steps_using_prefix_recurse(). I admit to not having had time to
> fully understand that and consider ways to break it.
> 
> Marking as ready for committer.
> 

Passes check-world, and CommitFest app has been updated to reflect the 
current patch set. Trivial changes attached.

Best regards,
  Jesper