| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| 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, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 21:24:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200901072124.n07LObE18178@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> 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.
The idea is that it is "one less thing to do".
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-01-07 21:26:04 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 21:24:23 | Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |