David Rowley wrote: > It's not exactly wrong but: > > + * are turned into a set of "pruning steps", which are then executed to > + * produce a set of RTIs of partitions whose bounds satisfy the constraints > in > + * the step. Partitions not in the set are said to have been pruned. > > It's only prune_append_rel_partitions which is only used for the > planner's pruning needs that converts the partition indexes to RTIs. > Would it be better to mention that the output is partition indexes? > Maybe: > > "which are then executed to produce a set of partition indexes whose > bounds satisfy the constraints in the step. These partition indexes > may then be translated into RTIs", or maybe even not mention the RTIs.
Amit had it as "indexes" also in his original. I wanted to avoid using the "indexes" word alone, whose meaning is so overloaded. How about this? "... which are then executed to produce a set of partitions (as indexes of resultRelInfo->part_rels array) that satisfy the constraints in the step". Maybe "the boundinfo array" instead of part_rels, which as I understand also uses the same indexing as the other array, and partprune mostly works based on boundinfo anyway? Not mentioning RTIs seems fine. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
