On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > * get_partitioned_child_rels_for_join()
>> >
>> > I think the Assert() statement is easier to understand inside the loop, see
>> > the assert.diff attachment.
>
>> The assert at the end of function also checks that we have got
>> child_rels lists for all the parents passed in.
>
> Really? I can imagine that some instances of PartitionedChildRelInfo have the
> child_rels list empty, while other ones have these lists long enough to
> compensate for the empty lists.
>
That isn't true. Each child_rels list will at least have one entry.
Please see get_partitioned_child_rels().
>> >
>> >
>> > * have_partkey_equi_join()
>> >
>> > As the function handles generic join, this comment doesn't seem to me
>> > relevant:
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * The equi-join between partition keys is strict if equi-join between
>> > * at least one partition key is using a strict operator. See
>> > * explanation about outer join reordering identity 3 in
>> > * optimizer/README
>> > */
>> > strict_op = op_strict(opexpr->opno);
>>
>> What in that comment is not exactly relevant?
>
> Basically I don't understand why you mention join reordering here. The join
> ordering questions must all have been resolved by the time
> have_partkey_equi_join() is called.
I am referring to a particular section in README which talks about the
relation between strict operator and legal join order.
>
>> >
>> > And I think the function can return true even if strict_op is false for all
>> > the operators evaluated in the loop.
>>
>> I think it does that. Do you have a case where it doesn't?
>
> Here I refer to this part of the comment above:
>
> "... if equi-join between at least one partition key is using a strict
> operator."
>
> My understanding of the code (especially match_expr_to_partition_keys) is that
> no operator actually needs to be strict as long as each operator involved in
> the join matches at least one non-nullable expression on both sides of the
> join.
I don't think so. A strict operator returns NULL when either of the
inputs is NULL. We can not say so for non-strict operators, which may
deem NULL and non-NULL arguments as equal, even though that looks
insane.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company