| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2018-05-10 18:05:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkN9aBLNytrY8F+kn_4aGa4ePie4KF6_xNtF130+wYow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Seems like if it stays the name is good - but at this point no has voiced
>> opposition to removing it and making the name a moot point.
>
> If we think the probability of bugs is 0%, then I'm all for removing it.
> I don't. I vote to remove the GUC in a couple of releases, once it's
> proven completely useless.
No feature ever written has a 0% probability of bugs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-10 18:57:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-10 17:51:27 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |