| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: preserving statistics settings |
| Date: | 2002-07-20 01:02:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1027126969.75142.3.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 18:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, checking my notes about this issue, I notice a related question:
> should attstattarget be inherited for the inherited columns when a child
> table is created? Right now it's not, and it might be a bit ugly to
> make it so.
>
> In a lot of scenarios you wouldn't necessarily expect the parent and
> child tables to have similar contents, so I'm not sure inheriting
> attstattarget is appropriate anyway. Comments anyone?
In any of my uses of inheritance the contents have been drastically
different between the various tables. Not that I've played much with
the statistics stuff, but I don't think blindly applying the value would
be good.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-20 05:17:08 | Re: Inheritance a burden? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-20 00:17:14 | Re: prepareable statements |