Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 2017/11/30 5:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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

Thanks a lot.

> * 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

Yeah, that one I too noticed yesterday while rebasing.

Thanks,
Amit