On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 20:44, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:04 AM Ashutosh Bapat < > ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:03 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:36 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > > Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > > Yeah, partition_bounds_merge() is currently called only from >> > > > try_partitionwise_join(), which guarantees that the strategies are >> the >> > > > same. >> > >> > > If there's only one caller and there's not likely to ever be more, >> > > then I tend to agree that you don't need the assertion. >> > >> > It seems unlikely that partition_bounds_merge() will be called from >> > more places in the foreseeable future, so I'd still vote for removing >> > the assertion. >> >> When I wrote that function, I had UNION also in mind. A UNION across >> multiple partitioned relations will be partitioned if we can merge the >> partition bounds in a sensible manner. Of course the current structure >> of that function looks more purposed for join, but it's not difficult >> to convert it to be used for UNION as well. In that case those set of >> functions will have many more callers. So, I will vote to keep that >> assertion now that we have it there. >> > > In that case, we really should add the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY to make > the compiler happy. > > Attaching my patch again. It doesn't need PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY as well. Kuntal has confirmed that this fixes the warning for him. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh
