Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f9nG_hz7=7A5MiNa_SZhNyLmCyhY5FF3KAKN1C_A30cSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 18 April 2018 at 13:03, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> My initial reaction is that we need to fix the bug introduced in v10 -
> leaving constraint_exclusion working as it has historically and not affect
> the new-as-of-10 ability to prune (maybe better termed as skip...)
> partitions known during execution to contain no qualified tuples.

Can you explain which bug in PG10 you are talking about? Did you
perhaps mean PG11?

I'm not onboard with overloading the constraint_exclusion GUC any
further to mean something it shouldn't. The PG11 partition pruning
code does not use CHECK constraints to eliminate partitions, so I see
no reason why constraint_exclusion should turn it on or off.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation