| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2018-05-10 17:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaMutP5Uph=wyC8DWBSC1FzsoWUk52yrdxXth7h1TWk4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-10 17:16:17 | Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4 |
| Previous Message | Douglas Doole | 2018-05-10 17:05:57 | ts_rewrite in 10.4 |