| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <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>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 18:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 6DAFE8F5425AB84DB3FCA4537D829A561CEA8AA8F9@M0164.s-mxs.net |
| 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.
>
> > Not a huge fan of 'child' since it implies inheritance. 'union' doesn't
> > work for a similar reason. What about 'partitioned'?
>
> Hm, how about just 'partition'?
+1
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-07 18:57:17 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-07 18:40:01 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |