On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 13:59, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > In an absolutely brown-paper-bag moment, I realized that I had not > updated src/backend/executor/README to reflect the changes to the > executor's control flow that this patch makes. That is, after > scrapping the old design back in January whose details *were* > reflected in the patches before that redesign. > > Anyway, the attached fixes that. > > Tom, do you think you have bandwidth in the near future to give this > another look? I think I've addressed the comments that you had given > back in April, though as mentioned in the previous message, there may > still be some funny-looking aspects still remaining. In any case, I > have no intention of pressing ahead with the patch without another > committer having had a chance to sign off on it.
I've only just started taking a look at this, and my first test drive yields very impressive results: 8192 partitions (3 runs, 10000 rows) Head 391.294989 382.622481 379.252236 Patched 13088.145995 13406.135531 13431.828051 Looking at your changes to README, I would like to suggest rewording the following: +table during planning. This means that inheritance child tables, which are +added to the query's range table during planning, if they are present in a +cached plan tree would not have been locked. To: This means that inheritance child tables present in a cached plan tree, which are added to the query's range table during planning, would not have been locked. Also, further down: s/intiatialize/initialize/ I'll carry on taking a closer look and see if I can break it. Thom
