| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 18:15:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20090107181559.GP26233@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Actually, it looks like it'd be totally trivial to implement: just check
> rel->reloptkind == RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL to detect whether we're
> looking at an inheritance child. (Actually this would also succeed
> for a UNION ALL member, but that's good because that's the other case
> where constraint exclusion is more likely to be useful.)
Covering the UNION ALL case would be terrific! I was a bit concerned
since we just have UNION ALL views and don't use inheritance generally.
> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen. What do we want to
> call the intermediate constraint_exclusion value? The first thing
> that comes to mind is constraint_exclusion = 'child', but perhaps
> someone has a better idea.
Not a huge fan of 'child' since it implies inheritance. 'union' doesn't
work for a similar reason. What about 'partitioned'?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-07 18:32:37 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-07 17:59:17 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |