Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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