| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, 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 21:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1231363293.18005.74.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen.
I don't really understand this. Who can set up an inherited table
structure but can't remember to turn on constraint_exclusion? That is
the easiest part of the whole process by a long way. Nobody has this
table design by accident, they've all been told how or read the docs.
I'm not against the change so much as bemused by it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 21:24:23 | Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2009-01-07 21:19:25 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work |