Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-04-09 03:48:57
Message-ID: CAKJS1f_EZ3jHUDH1zxdauaq_2BGPjpzxJ-noMGfFuz3EehaC3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

While looking at the docs in [1], I saw that we still mention:

4. Ensure that the constraint_exclusion configuration parameter is not
disabled in postgresql.conf. If it is, queries will not be optimized
as desired.

This is no longer true. The attached patch removed it.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ddl-partitioning.html

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Remove-mention-of-constraint_exclusion-in-partitioni.patch application/octet-stream 996 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-04-09 04:26:54 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2018-04-09 03:15:01 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS