| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 16:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1231347395.12947.28.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 10:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Based on the comments below, are we sure constraint_exclusion still
> >> needs to be a parameter and can't be on by default?
> In installations whose average query is significantly heavier-weight
> than this one, and where constraint exclusion actually improves matters
> on a routine basis, it makes sense to turn it on by default. I will
> continue to resist having it on as a factory default, because I continue
> to believe that it's 99% useless to most people. As for removing the
I believe are correct in that it is 99% useless to most people. If it
was turned on by default, it would also not be noticed by 99% of those
people.
So why not help the 1% that it actually would?
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-07 17:14:13 | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-01-07 16:53:04 | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |