From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ivan Zolotukhin" <ivan(dot)zolotukhin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: interesting trigger behaviour in 8.3 |
Date: | 2008-07-29 15:52:01 |
Message-ID: | 11469.1217346721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Ivan Zolotukhin" <ivan(dot)zolotukhin(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In pseudo code it looks like the following. There are 2 tables, empty
> abstract_table with 3 columns (id, col1, col2) and many tables (e.g.
> inherited_table1_with_data) that inherit abstract_table.
> Constraint_exclusion is set up on id column and works perfectly. So
> we've got update like this
> UPDATE abstract_table SET col1 = 1, col2 = 2 WHERE id = 12345;
I bet it does not *really* look like that, but has a parameterized
WHERE clause. As per the fine manual:
Constraint exclusion only works when the query's WHERE clause
contains constants. A parameterized query will not be optimized,
since the planner cannot know which partitions the parameter value
might select at run time. For the same reason, "stable" functions
such as CURRENT_DATE must be avoided.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Reyes | 2008-07-29 18:06:53 | Index creation and maintenance_work_mem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-29 15:42:41 | Re: What to do after an "ERROR: out of memory" |