Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Date: 2018-05-08 13:32:05
Message-ID: 20180508133205.GL5192@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 06:00:59PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Many thanks for reviewing this.

2nd round - from the minimalist department:

+ partitions which cannot possibly contain any matching records.
maybe: partitions which cannot match any records.

+ <para>
+ Partition pruning done during execution can be performed at any of the
+ following times:

remove "done"?

+ number of partitions which were removed during this phase of pruning by
remove "of prunning"

Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-05-08 13:42:13 Re: cannot drop replication slot if server is running in single-user mode
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-05-08 13:21:19 Re: [HACKERS] Clock with Adaptive Replacement