From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
Date: | 2009-12-08 02:12:01 |
Message-ID: | 20091208021201.GR3552@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > If we do need to do this, perhaps we should change the older parameter
> > to be partition_exclusion.
>
> Yeah, if we do want to do something about this then changing the name of
> the existing GUC would be a lot less work. However, partition_exclusion
> seems to imply that it *only* applies to partitioned tables, which is
> not the case...
Perhaps
table_exclusion = {on, off, partition}
Of course, constraint_exclusion should continue to work as a synonym for
backwards compatibility, but it wouldn't be documented.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-12-08 02:23:24 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
Previous Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2009-12-08 01:49:53 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |