Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join
| От | Ashutosh Bapat |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAExHW5t02NnBqF8FWZkkZ=8nu2Z=YaLdFT-3-nb0jROi09gZ+g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 11:10 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: