Tom Lane escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> So I think we need a parameter for join removal also.
> > I had this in my original patch but Tom wanted it taken out.
> And I still don't want it. We are NOT going in the direction of adding
> an enable_ knob for every single planner activity --- do you have the
> faintest idea how many there would be? We have such knobs for a small
> number of cases where it's arguable that the action might be the wrong
> thing for a particular query. Join removal, if applicable, can't
> possibly be the wrong choice; it's better than every other join strategy.
It seems that what's really needed is some debug output to be able to
find out what it did.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-03-29 14:43:14|
|Subject: Re: Using HStore type in TSearch |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-03-29 14:36:14|
|Subject: Re: enable_joinremoval |