| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs |
| Date: | 2019-03-14 19:45:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZgMebwNi3q+VcQDfrZG5s4gm+oFwG-r6SBuZA1Ltd0nA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:36 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, I suppose that can be implemented as an optimization on top of
> what we have, but I think that we should first get this feature right,
> and later we can see about improving it.
Sure, not arguing with that.
> In any case, since the RI
> queries are run via SPI, any unnecessary partitions should get pruned by
> partition pruning based on each partition's constraint. So I'm not so
> certain that this is a problem worth spending much time/effort/risk of
> bugs on.
I doubt that partition pruning would just automatically DTRT in a case
like this, but if I'm wrong, great!
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-03-14 20:09:53 | Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-03-14 19:36:35 | Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs |