On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:04 PM Tomas Vondra <to...@vondra.me> wrote: > On 5/22/25 10:12, Amit Langote wrote: > > Note that I’ve only reverted the changes related to deferring locks on > > prunable partitions. I’m planning to leave the preparatory commits > > leading up to that one in place unless anyone objects. For reference, > > here they are in chronological order (the last 3 are bug fixes): > > > > bb3ec16e14d Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt > > d47cbf474ec Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode() > > cbc127917e0 Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations > > 75dfde13639 Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly > > cbb9086c9ef Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly > > 28317de723b Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned > > > > I think separating initial pruning from plan node initialization is > > still worthwhile on its own, as evidenced by the improvements in > > cbc127917e. > > > > I'm OK with that in principle, assuming the benefits outweigh the risk > of making backpatching harder. The patches don't seem exceptionally > large / invasive, but I don't know how often we modify these parts.
Thanks. I agree it's something to be mindful of, but I don’t expect the reimplementation of the locking deferral to require changes to this part of the code again. So barring any surprises, it shouldn't be the case that the pruning code ends up looking significantly different in v19. Also, the actual pruning logic hasn’t changed much -- just where it’s called from. Let me know if any of that still raises concerns. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
