| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| 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 18:57:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20090107185717.GQ26233@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Hm, how about just 'partition'? Your argument is fair, and another
> point in its favor is that someday we'll probably have an explicit
> notion of partitioned tables and both the inheritance and union-view
> approaches would become legacy methods. We'd certainly want constraint
> exclusion to apply to all three by default.
'partition' works for me.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-07 19:53:54 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust things so that the query_string of a cached plan and the |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT | 2009-01-07 18:42:40 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |