On 2018/05/09 11:31, David Rowley wrote:
> On 9 May 2018 at 14:29, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2018/05/09 11:20, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> While looking at this code, is there any reason to not make
>>> gen_partprune_steps static? This is only used in partprune.c for now,
>>> so the intention is to make it available for future patches?
>>
>> Yeah, making it static might be a good idea. I had made it externally
>> visible, because I was under the impression that the runtime pruning
>> related code would want to call it from elsewhere within the planner.
>> But, instead it introduced a make_partition_pruneinfo() which in turn
>> calls get_partprune_steps.
>
> Yeah. Likely left over from when run-time pruning was generating the
> steps during execution rather than during planning.
Here is a patch that does that.
Thanks,
Amit