On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that is under acceptable range. I am seeing few regression > failures with the patch series. The order of targetlist seems to have > changed for Remote SQL. Kindly find the failure report attached. I > have requested my colleague Ashutosh Sharma to cross-verify this and > he is also seeing the same failures.
Oops. Those just require an expected output change. > It seems UPPERREL_TLIST is redundant in the patch now. I think we can > remove it unless you have something else in mind. Yes. > I think the handling of partitioned rels looks okay, but we might want > to once check the overhead of the same unless you are sure that this > shouldn't be a problem. If you think, we should check it once, then > is it possible that we can do it as a separate patch as this doesn't > look to be directly linked to the main patch. It can be treated as an > optimization for partitionwise aggregates. I think we can treat it > along with the main patch as well, but it might be somewhat simpler to > verify it if we do it separately. I don't think it should be a problem, although you're welcome to test it if you're concerned about it. I think it would probably be penny-wise and pound-foolish to worry about the overhead of eliminating the Result nodes, which can occur not only with partition-wise aggregate but also with partition-wise join and, I think, really any case where the top scan/join plan would be an Append node. We're talking about a very small amount of additional planning time to potentially get a better plan. I've committed all of these now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company