| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Date: | 2018-05-11 03:59:27 |
| Message-ID: | 5b60e182-106a-6970-9352-8cf3e7bc9c0d@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/05/11 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> As a user I don't really need to know which model is implemented and the
>>> name doesn't necessarily imply the implementation. Pruning seems to be the
>>> commonly-used term for this feature and we should stick with that.
>>
>> I agree with this conclusion. So we have it right and we shouldn't
>> change it.
>
> +1.
+1 from me too.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-05-11 04:48:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-11 03:38:34 | Re: PANIC during crash recovery of a recently promoted standby |