| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| 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 18:36:35 |
| Message-ID: | 26463.1231353395@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen. What do we want to
>> call the intermediate constraint_exclusion value? The first thing
>> that comes to mind is constraint_exclusion = 'child', but perhaps
>> someone has a better idea.
> Not a huge fan of 'child' since it implies inheritance. 'union' doesn't
> work for a similar reason. What about 'partitioned'?
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-07 18:40:01 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-07 18:32:37 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |