On 2017/09/09 9:58, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm a bit suspicious about the fact that there are now executor > changes related to the PlanRowMarks. If the rowmark's prti is now the > intermediate parent's RT index rather than the top-parent's RT index, > it'd seem like that'd matter somehow. Maybe it doesn't, because the > code that cares about prti seems to only care about whether it's > different from rti.
Yes, it doesn't matter. The important point though is that nothing we want to do in the short term requires us to set a child PlanRowMark's prti to its immediate parent's RT index, as I also mentioned in reply to Ashutosh. > But if that's true everywhere, then why even > change this? I think we might be well off not to tinker with things > that don't need to be changed. +1. > Apart from that concern, now that I understand (from my own failed > attempt and some off-list discussion) why this patch works the way it > does, I think this is in fairly good shape. I too think so, except we still need to incorporate changes to add_paths_to_append_rel() necessary to correctly set partitioned_rels, as I explained in reply Ashutosh. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
