MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAH5YaUwVUWETTyVECTnhs7C=CVwi+uMSQH=cOkwAUqMdvXdwWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvooK9iKSDWu45D3tjMBec2=6dXzKk_LzaGj_DqfTs6Xvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs49ittTvqB50_=eNPwN3-HAJX__s3kfn5nJc3nABTUZoyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs48w9424moGiS_f5jPhL3fMLRn+Q1FTLOzDsRZy-DvuUFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMbWs48w9424moGiS_f5jPhL3fMLRn+Q1FTLOzDsRZy-DvuUFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:05:11 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAMbWs4-gsKrhs9attotkw1eRNC3oFeB8damkO04_iukULWF=5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Potential partition pruning regression on PostgreSQL 18
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A1ndido_Antonio_Mart=C3=ADnez_Descalzo?=
 <candido@ninehq.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMbWs4-gsKrhs9attotkw1eRNC3oFeB8damkO04_iukULWF%3D5g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 5:00=E2=80=AFPM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> Here are the more formal patches for HEAD and for v18.
>
> In the HEAD patch, I renamed strip_phvs_in_index_operand() to
> strip_noop_phvs() and moved it from indxpath.c to placeholder.c, since
> it is now a general-purpose utility used by both index matching and
> partition pruning code.
>
> However, since strip_phvs_in_index_operand() is an extern function
> declared in a public header, I'm worried that third-party extensions
> may have started calling it after it was introduced in ad66f705f.  So
> for the v18 back-patch, I retained strip_phvs_in_index_operand() in
> indxpath.c as a thin wrapper around the new strip_noop_phvs(), to
> avoid breaking such extensions in a minor release.
>
> Does this seem like reasonable caution, or is it overkill given how
> recently the function was introduced?

I prefer to be cautious, so I've committed the patches as-is.

- Richard