| 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: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2019-04-11 04:50:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_RAk5zPYSLv9n4U1-T0kRYW3B2yCBTi3Sv4cy8uFbERQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 16:06, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> On 2019/04/11 12:34, David Rowley wrote:
> > Now that we have 428b260f8, I think the version of this that goes into
> > master should be more like the attached.
>
> Thanks, looks good.
Thanks for looking.
> I've posted a patch last week on the "speed up partition planning" thread
> [1] which modifies ddl.sgml to remove the text about UPDATE/DELETE using
> constraint exclusion under the covers. Do you think there's any merit to
> combining that with this one?
Probably separate is better. I don't think anything you're proposing
there is for back-patching, but I think the original patch over here
should be.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-11 04:54:09 | Re: Reducing the runtime of the core regression tests |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-11 04:44:02 | Re: Reducing the runtime of the core regression tests |