On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2018/02/09 14:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I also noticed that a later patch adds partsupfunc to PartitionScheme,
>>> which the pruning patch needs too. So, perhaps would be nice to take out
>>> that portion of the patch. That is, the changes to PartitionScheme struct
>>> definition and those to find_partition_scheme().
>>
>> I am not sure whether a patch with just that change and without any
>> changes to use that member will be acceptable. So leaving this aside.
>
> I asked, because with everything that I have now changed in the partition
> pruning patch, one would need to pass these FmgrInfo pointers down to
> partition bound searching functions from the optimizer. If the changes to
> add partsupfunc to the optimizer were taken out from your main patch, the
> pruning patch could just start using it. For now, I'm making those
> changes part of the pruning patch.
That's fine. Someone's patch will be committed first and the other
will just take out those changes. But I am open to separate those
changes into other patch if a committer feels so.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company