Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Langote
Тема Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse
Дата
Msg-id CA+HiwqHCL+oqOLpvDFuQUMdJSjSApZ_4W2m0zPz6XYo61AcT-A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless the indexing system actually can't reference the first element
> of *pds, and -1 means the second element.  But then I think we need a
> more verbose explanation here.

First element in *pds list (and the array subsequently created from
it) contains the root table's entry.  So, a -1 does mean the 2nd entry
in that list/array.  A 0 in the indexes array always refers to a leaf
partition and hence an index into the array for leaf partitions.

Thanks,
Amit


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)