On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:05:41PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > [...] > > I'd categorise this one the same as I have #1 above, i.e. not > backpatch material. It seems like something useful to look into for > v12 though. I assumed this was done for a reason and that I just > didn't understand what that reason was. I don't recall any comments to > explain the reason why we build two RangeTblEntrys for each > partitioned table.
I agree. Please let's keep v11 stable, and discuss further more on future optimizations like the previous two items for v12, which has plenty of time to be broken. > In light of what Amit has highlighted, I'm still standing by the v3 > patch assuming the typo is fixed. Yeah. Actually I'd like to add a test as well to test the recursion call of expand_partitioned_rtentry. If you have an idea, please let me know or I'll figure out one by myself and add it probably in create_table.sql. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
