On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:50 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:23:49PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Inheritance queries would continue to act as they do now, where an
> > excluded table is *not* shown; this is to allow for sensible size
> > EXPLAINs when we have 100s of child tables.
>
> Since it's also possible to do partitioning with UNION ALL, maybe it
> would be better if there was an option to explain that told it either to
> show or not show info about eliminated partitions. That would seem to
> serve the general case better than coding it according to table type.
Can you think up the syntax, so we can comment on that proposal?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
