Tom Lane wrote:
> This gets back to the discussions at PGCon about needing to have a more
> explicit representation of partitioning. Right now, for a
> many-partition table we spend huge amounts of time deriving the expected
> behavior from first principles, each time we make a plan. And even then
> we can only get it right for limited cases (eg, no parameterized
> queries). If the planner actually understood that a set of tables
> formed a partitioned set then it'd be a lot easier and faster to get the
> desired behavior, not only with respect to the rowcount estimates but
> the plan's structure.
>
>
>
Even if this doesn't solve every problem, it's surely worth doing for
those it will solve.
cheers
andrew
