Horton

Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-05-11T06:36:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/11 2:13, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> David G. Johnston wrote:
>>>> As a user I don't really need to know which model is implemented and the
>>>> name doesn't necessarily imply the implementation.  Pruning seems to be the
>>>> commonly-used term for this feature and we should stick with that.
>>>
>>> I agree with this conclusion.  So we have it right and we shouldn't
>>> change it.
>> 
>> +1.
> 
> +1 from me too.

+1.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Tweak partitioning documentation wording

  2. docs: Rework sections on partition pruning/exclusion

  3. Add GUC enable_partition_pruning