| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <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" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 21:40:20 |
| Message-ID: | A76FB8ED-7923-4E89-A308-313CAD3805CF@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 7 janv. 09 à 22:21, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> a écrit :
>
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen.
>
> I don't really understand this. Who can set up an inherited table
> structure but can't remember to turn on constraint_exclusion? That is
> the easiest part of the whole process by a long way. Nobody has this
> table design by accident, they've all been told how or read the docs.
>
> I'm not against the change so much as bemused by it.
I think the improvement is not in the usability part but the
performance benefit of avoiding lots of cpu cycles when there's no
gain to hope.
And I like the new option!
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-07 21:41:55 | Re: Latest version of Hot Standby patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-07 21:31:24 | Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |