Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> It seems I wrote an Assert in the code to support hash partitioning that
> wasn't based on a valid assumption.  I was wrongly assuming that all hash
> partitions for a given modulus (largest modulus) must exist at any given
> time, but that isn't the case.

Committed 0003 with some adjustments:

* Renamed the new test to partition_prune.
* Moved the test to what I thought was a better place in the schedule
file, and made it consistent between serial_schedule and
parallel_schedule.
* commutates -> commuted
* removed wrong /* empty */ comment
* Updated expected output.  It surprised me a bit that the tests
weren't passing as you had them, but the differences I got - all
related to mc3p_default - seemed correct to me

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company