On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Given the scenario described above, it looks like we have to retain > partition hierarchy in the form of inheritance hierarchy in order to > implement partition-wise joins for multi-leveled partition tables. Is > that the right thing to do? PFA a patch retained by Amit Langote to > translate partition hierarchy into inheritance hierarchy. Is this > something on the right direction?
I am not sure whether Amit's patch is the right way to go. I don't fully understand it, and I remember complaining about some aspects of it before, such as this unexplained and fairly random-looking exception: + /* + * Do not flatten the inheritance hierarchy if partitioned table, unless + * this is the result relation. + */ However, I think the overall idea of doing flattening later in the process for partitioned tables is probably correct. It's not that we shouldn't do flattening at all -- the final Plan shouldn't involve nested Append nodes -- but maybe we should delay it. Perhaps the Path tree retains the structure and the final Plan flattens it. We might consider doing that way for both inheritance trees and partitioning, just so we don't have two different code paths to validate. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers