| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 01:20:45 |
| Message-ID: | 28518.1260235245@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-12-08 01:27:09 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-08 01:17:14 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |