| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: inheritance, and plans |
| Date: | 2009-02-07 10:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0902070259x2954ed78ob5ac746b14ae6c21@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The UNION arms have to all be the same data type in order to have
> restrictions pushed down through the UNION. You did not show us
> the table declarations for your first example, but I bet that updateid
> isn't the same type in both. (And yes, a domain is different from its
> underlying type for this purpose.)
I think you're right. The domain's in both cases (updateid and uri)
are bigints default nextval('something') not null;
and the r.history table's ones are just bigints not null. Same
underlying type, but not a domain. I'll try to alter it to domain
type, and see.
thanks.
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-02-07 11:03:17 | Re: inheritance, and plans |
| Previous Message | Thomas Finneid | 2009-02-07 09:27:34 | Re: explanation of some configs |