Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's why I wanted list_length() not list_length() - 1. We are
>> doing *something* at the top partitioned table, it just doesn't
>> involve a table scan, so I don't find this totally unreasonable.
>> If you agree we are doing work at intermediate partitioned tables,
>> how are we not doing work at the top one?
> What you're proposing would redefine the meaning of
> PARTITIONS_DONE/TOTAL, even in the absence of intermediate partitioned
> tables. Which might be okay, but the scope of this thread/patch was to
> fix the behavior involving intermediate partitioned tables.
I'm a little skeptical of that argument, because this patch is already
redefining the meaning of PARTITIONS_TOTAL. The fact that the existing
documentation is vague enough to be read either way doesn't make it not
a change.
Still, in the interests of getting something done I'll drop the issue.
regards, tom lane
