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 -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
