Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I don't understand why you think that partition-wise join needs any > new logic here; if this were a non-partitionwise join, we'd similarly > need to use the correct operator, but the existing code handles that > just fine. If the join is performed partition-wise, it should use the > same operators that would have been used by a non-partitionwise join > between the same tables.
More to the point, the appropriate operator was chosen by parse analysis. The planner has *zero* flexibility as to which operator is involved. BTW, I remain totally mystified as to what people think the semantics of partitioning ought to be. Child columns can have a different type from parent columns? Really? Why is this even under discussion? We don't allow that in old-school inheritance, and I cannot imagine a rational argument why partitioning should allow it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers