| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2018-04-20 02:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-keH4kOib2FmYUkUPpR7PcmzKwwgo1X3DLQ9epOu9G1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 April 2018 at 14:33, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2018/04/20 11:18, David Rowley wrote:
>> 4. Replace test doing (constraint_exclusion ==
>> CONSTRAINT_EXCLUSION_PARTITION) with (enable_partition_pruning).
>> 5. Get rid of CONSTRAINT_EXCLUSION_PARTITION.
>
> About 4 & 5:
>
> Perhaps we should leave constraint_exclusion = partition alone because
> there might be users who want to continue using the old inheritance method
> to set up partitioning for whatever reason?
Yeah, for some reason that keeps falling out my brain.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-20 03:37:08 | Re: Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48? |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-04-20 02:40:27 | Re: Oddity in tuple routing for foreign partitions |