Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoZZcC=qsZw+ruz36xSoBHLBxLr9s-wstQ8aH-gVUyqMsQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 9:20 AM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there's an unwritten convention that we re/set GUCs nearer the > queries which require/exercise those. That way they are visible. The > test file is about testing partitionwise join, so it's expected that > most of the queries will require PWJ enabled. Seeing > enable_partitionwise_join = true in the middle of the file made me > think that we are disabling PWJ somewhere before to test disabled PWJ > and re-enabling it. But I couldn't find a statement disabling it. > After spending some time and going through the original commit which > added enable_partitionwise_join = true, I realised that it was not > required there. I did that exercise twice, once when writing the patch > and once while comparing my patch and your commit. Removing that > statement will save somebody the same exercise. But I am ok, if we > don't want to remove it. After looking at it, I agree with your analysis, so I've committed your patch. Thanks, -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: