Kirill Reshke писал(а) 2026-11-03 18:12:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 at 18:34, Alexander Pyhalov
<[email protected]> wrote:
While looking at the latest version of the patch, I've asked myself,
why
consider_async_append decisions are a bit different now for Append and
MergeAppend.
Perhaps, Append shouldn't completely avoid introducing async foreign
scans when it deals with range-partitioned tables?
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
Hi!
Is this proposed as a separate patch or should work with other async
append patches?
in this case
CREATE TABLE ordered_append_remote (a int);
INSERT INTO ordered_append_remote VALUES (1), (2);
CREATE TABLE ordered_append_parent (a int) PARTITION BY RANGE (a);
CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ordered_append_low PARTITION OF
ordered_append_parent
FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (100) SERVER ordered_append_loopback
OPTIONS (schema_name 'public', table_name 'ordered_append_remote');
CREATE TABLE ordered_append_high PARTITION OF ordered_append_parent
FOR VALUES FROM (100) TO (200);
INSERT INTO ordered_append_high VALUES (101), (102);
CREATE INDEX ON ordered_append_high (a);
ANALYZE ordered_append_parent;
SELECT a FROM ordered_append_parent ORDER BY a LIMIT 1;
Last select returns 101 rather than 1
Hi. Yes, sorry, this was my error. Async append will not preserve order,
so this attempt is clearly wrong.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
