On 2017/09/09 9:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor
> changes related to the PlanRowMarks. If the rowmark's prti is now the
> intermediate parent's RT index rather than the top-parent's RT index,
> it'd seem like that'd matter somehow. Maybe it doesn't, because the
> code that cares about prti seems to only care about whether it's
> different from rti.
Yes, it doesn't matter. The important point though is that nothing we
want to do in the short term requires us to set a child PlanRowMark's prti
to its immediate parent's RT index, as I also mentioned in reply to Ashutosh.
> But if that's true everywhere, then why even
> change this? I think we might be well off not to tinker with things
> that don't need to be changed.
+1.
> Apart from that concern, now that I understand (from my own failed
> attempt and some off-list discussion) why this patch works the way it
> does, I think this is in fairly good shape.
I too think so, except we still need to incorporate changes to
add_paths_to_append_rel() necessary to correctly set partitioned_rels, as
I explained in reply Ashutosh.
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers