| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2019-04-11 05:00:49 |
| Message-ID: | 0e671af2-7767-2ffa-b5e9-0dc86b248f93@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019/04/11 13:50, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 16:06, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> I've posted a patch last week on the "speed up partition planning" thread
>> [1] which modifies ddl.sgml to remove the text about UPDATE/DELETE using
>> constraint exclusion under the covers. Do you think there's any merit to
>> combining that with this one?
>
> Probably separate is better. I don't think anything you're proposing
> there is for back-patching, but I think the original patch over here
> should be.
OK, no problem. I just thought to point out my patch because you've
posted a version of the patch here for HEAD *because of* 428b260f8, the
commit which also obsoleted the text that the other patch fixes.
Anyway, let's leave the other patch on its own thread where there are a
few other things to be sorted out.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-11 05:03:07 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-11 04:54:09 | Re: Reducing the runtime of the core regression tests |