| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 18:32:37 |
| Message-ID: | 4964F545.2030802@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen. What do we want to
> call the intermediate constraint_exclusion value? The first thing
> that comes to mind is constraint_exclusion = 'child', but perhaps
> someone has a better idea.
This is terrific. I've actually been turning c_e on and off by ROLE
property at some sites because of the penalty on one-liner web queries.
This would solve that.
I don't like "child", though, which is not a keyword we use definitively
elsewhere. I'd suggest "INHERITED" or something based on "inherit",
because that's the actual keyword we use when we create a partition.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 18:36:35 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-07 18:15:59 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |