| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | yuzuko <yuzukohosoya(at)gmail(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 |
| Date: | 2019-08-05 14:39:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20190805143920.GA6232@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |