| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martin Lesser <ml-pgsql(at)bettercom(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough |
| Date: | 2006-08-07 18:38:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3836.1154975901@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> To achieve the "indexed" partition pruning, we'd need
> - a way to specify that all constraints are mutually exclusive
> - a declarative approach for saying something like "arranged in date
> sequence"
> - preferably a way to have this happen at run-time so we can hard-plan a
> query with CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in the WHERE clause
Definitely a direction worth pursuing, but it seems like it would be a
completely separate code path from the existing constraint-checking
code. I'd imagine that instead of having to prove theorems about which
tables to scan, a declarative approach would let us "just know" what
to do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-08-07 18:40:22 | Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0 |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-08-07 18:31:24 | Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0 |