Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: enable_joinremoval

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: enable_joinremoval
Date: 2010-03-29 20:11:35
Message-ID: 1269893495.3684.4310.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:31 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> You're not addressing the original point. I have been asked how would
> >>> users know which tables have been removed and whether there is a way of
> >>> checking that.
> >> 
> >> Uhh... they wont be in the explain output...  Seems simple enough.
> > That is exactly what I replied, though nobody felt that was a great
> > answer.
> Who complained about that exactly?  It seems like a perfectly
> appropriate answer to me.

I'm relaying feedback from others not on this list. People expect me to
do this. I shouldn't need to name them for us to accept the feedback,
nor should there be doubt that I relay this accurately (why else would I
raise the subject?!?). If it comes from me, I say so.

 Simon Riggs 

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-29 20:12:13
Subject: Re: Proposal: Add JSON support
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-29 20:11:03
Subject: Re: Parallel pg_dump for 9.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group