> On May 25, 2021, at 17:16, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's because of the OR condition. If it was an AND condition then the > planner wouldn't have to consider the fact that records in other > partitions might be required for the join. The OP might consider rewriting the query as a UNION, with each part of the top-lkevel OR being a branch of the UNION, but excluding the partitioned table from the JOINs for the branch of the UNION that doesn't appear to actually require them.
