| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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" |