On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 01:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> It seems that the planner currently elides an Append/MergeAppend that
> >> has run-time pruning info (part_prune_index) set, but which I think is
> >> a bug.
>
> >
David Rowley writes:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 01:30, Amit Langote wrote:
>> It seems that the planner currently elides an Append/MergeAppend that
>> has run-time pruning info (part_prune_index) set, but which I think is
>> a bug.
> There is still the trade-off of having to pull tuples through
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 01:30, Amit Langote wrote:
> It seems that the planner currently elides an Append/MergeAppend that
> has run-time pruning info (part_prune_index) set, but which I think is
> a bug.
This is actually how I intended it to work. Whether it was a good idea
or not, I'm currently
Hi,
It seems that the planner currently elides an Append/MergeAppend that
has run-time pruning info (part_prune_index) set, but which I think is
a bug. Here's an example:
create table p (a int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
set plan_cache_mode to
