Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

2017-11-07 Thread Amit Langote
Hi David. Thanks for the review. (..also looking at the comments you sent earlier today.) On 2017/11/07 11:14, David Rowley wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 01:52, David Rowley > wrote: >> Thanks. I'll look over it all again starting my Tuesday morning. (UTC+13) >

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

2017-11-06 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/11/06 21:52, David Rowley wrote: > On 6 November 2017 at 23:01, Amit Langote > wrote: >> OK, I have gotten rid of the min/max partition index interface and instead >> adopted the bms_add_range() approach by including your patch to add the >> same in the

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

2017-11-06 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/11/06 13:15, David Rowley wrote: > On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attached updated version of the patches > > match_clauses_to_partkey() needs to allow for the way quals on Bool > columns are represented. > > create table pt (a bool

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

2017-11-05 Thread David Rowley
On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote: >> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> 1. This comment seem wrong. >> >> /* >> * Since the clauses in

Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

2017-11-05 Thread Amit Langote
On 2017/11/06 12:53, David Rowley wrote: > On 3 November 2017 at 17:32, David Rowley > wrote: >> 2. This code is way more complex than it needs to be. >> >> if (num_parts > 0) >> { >> int j; >> >> all_indexes = (int *) palloc(num_parts * sizeof(int)); >> j = 0; >>