| From: | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
| Date: | 2009-12-08 01:49:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20091208024953.32da67c8@iridium.wars-nicht.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:20:45 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > If we do need to do this, perhaps we should change the older parameter
> > to be partition_exclusion.
>
> Yeah, if we do want to do something about this then changing the name of
> the existing GUC would be a lot less work. However, partition_exclusion
> seems to imply that it *only* applies to partitioned tables, which is
> not the case...
It is less coding work - but it will for sure confuse the users.
Bye
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-08 02:12:01 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-12-08 01:42:53 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |