Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing again.

Hi,

I'm thinking something a bit more radical. First, since partition
pruning is the future and constraint exclusion is soon to be a thing of
the past, we should describe pruning first, and then describe exclusion
in terms of pruning. Second, I'd put constraint exclusion as a <sect3>
inside the <sect2> that describes pruning (but keep the XML "id" the
same, so that old links continue to work.)

I took a stab at this, but ran out of time before trimming the text for
constraint exclusion. What do you think of this rough sketch? I'm
thinking 5.10.4 is close to its final form (wording suggestions of
course welcome), but 5.10.4.1 still needs to be trimmed heavily, to
avoid repeating what was already explained in 5.10.4 (we need only
explain how exclusion differs from pruning.)

I'm a bit undecided on where to leave the <note>.

(Note:
make -C doc/src/sgml html XSLTPROCFLAGS='--stringparam rootid ddl'
builds only the 'ddl' chapter, which is nice when proofreading.)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services