Horiguchi-san, Thanks for the review.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:09 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > At Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:50:54 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > When working on it, I realized > > that the way RelOptInfo.partition_qual is processed is a bit > > duplicative, so I created a separate patch to make that a bit more > > consistent. > > 0001 seems reasonable. By the way, the patch doesn't touch > get_relation_constraints(), but I suppose it can use the modified > partition constraint qual already stored in rel->partition_qual > in set_relation_partition_info. And we could move constifying to > set_rlation_partition_info? Ah, good advice. This make partition constraint usage within the planner quite a bit more consistent. > Also, I'd like to see comments that the partition_quals is > already varnode-fixed. Added a one-line comment. > And 0002, yeah, just +1 from me. Thanks. Attached updated patches; only 0001 changed per above comments. Regards, Amit
v2-0001-Improve-RelOptInfo.partition_qual-usage.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Improve-constraint-exclusion-usage-in-partprune.c.patch
Description: Binary data
