Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
> Do you need to plan for every combination, where some joins are removed
> and some are not?
I would vote for just having two plans and one switch node. To exploit
any finer grain, we'd have to have infrastructure that would let us figure
out *which* constraints pending triggers might indicate transient
invalidity of, and that doesn't seem likely to be worth the trouble.
> I hope the same mechanism could be used to prepare a plan for a query
> with parameters, where the parameters might or might not allow a partial
> index to be used. We have some smarts nowadays to use custom plans, but
> this could be better.
Interesting thought, but that would be a totally different switch
condition ...
regards, tom lane
