|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||shawn wang <shawn(dot)wang(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shawn Wang <shawn(dot)wang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Problem with default partition pruning|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-Aug-05, yuzuko wrote:
> So I proposed moving the if() block to the current place.
> The latest patch can solve both queries but I found the latter
> problem can be solved by setting constraint_exclusion = on.
So we have three locations for that test; one is where it currently is,
which handles a small subset of the cases. The other is where Amit
first proposed putting it, which handles some additional cases; and the
third one is where your latest patch puts it, which seems to handle all
cases. Isn't that what Amit is saying? If that's correct (and that's
what I want to imply with the comment changes I proposed), then we
should just accept that version of the patch.
I don't think that we care about what happens with constraint_exclusion
is on. That's not the recommended value for that setting anyway.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Tomas Vondra||2019-08-05 14:55:20||Re: [PATCH] Stop ALTER SYSTEM from making bad assumptions|
|Previous Message||Isaac Morland||2019-08-05 14:33:35||Re: [PATCH] Stop ALTER SYSTEM from making bad assumptions|