| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(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 02:10:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_pq_ric3G3fNBNXNR+eD_rv=xmYwNkYOxAy+CZ2Zy-Bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 May 2018 at 14:01, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm thinking something a bit more radical. First, since partition
> pruning is the future and constraint exclusion is soon to be a thing of
> the past, we should describe pruning first, and then describe exclusion
> in terms of pruning.
But... that's not true. The chapter describes inheritance partitioned
tables too, and we're not getting rid of constraint exclusion because
it's needed for those. However, that might not mean your patch has to
be changed. I'd better have a look...
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-10 02:17:24 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-10 02:01:55 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |