Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >> I don't get this. The executor surely had to (and did) open all of
> >> the relations somewhere even before this patch.
> > I was worried that this coding could be seen as breaking modularity, or
> > trying to do excessive work. However, after looking closer at it, it
> > doesn't really look like it's the case. So, nevermind.
>
> Well what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be necessary. If the
> relations are being opened already and the pointers to the relcache
> entries are being saved someplace, you shouldn't need to re-open them
> elsewhere to get pointers to the relcache entries.
I looked a bit more into this. It turns out that we have indeed opened
the relation before -- first in parserOpenTable (for addRangeTableEntry),
then in expandRTE, then in QueryRewrite, then in subquery_planner, then
in get_relation_info.
So, frankly, since each module thinks it's okay to open it every once in
a while, I'm not sure we should be terribly stressed about doing it once
more for partition pruning. Particularly since communicating the
pointer seems to be quite troublesome.
To figure out, I used the attached patch (not intended for application)
to add a backtrace to each log message, plus a couple of accusatory
elog() calls in relation_open and ExecSetupPartitionPruneState.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
