| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-05-11 06:36:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20180511063605.GA16028@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/11 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> David G. Johnston wrote:
>>>> As a user I don't really need to know which model is implemented and the
>>>> name doesn't necessarily imply the implementation. Pruning seems to be the
>>>> commonly-used term for this feature and we should stick with that.
>>>
>>> I agree with this conclusion. So we have it right and we shouldn't
>>> change it.
>>
>> +1.
>
> +1 from me too.
+1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-11 06:38:29 | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-11 06:31:02 | Re: Needless additional partition check in INSERT? |