Horton

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

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-05-12T15:30:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hello

Amit Langote wrote:

> +1 to this more radical overhaul of this part of the documentation.

Thanks.  I pushed now after some more tweaking, including your suggested
corrections.  I removed the examples, because they were both wrong.  We
can give this more polish if anybody has the energy, but I think we're
in a pretty decent place now.

I'm not convinced that we need to show so much detail on pruning as
proposed by Robert elsewhere; we didn't have a lot of detail for
exclusion either and I don't have any evidence that it was a terrible
problem for users.  Also, one possible use of the new GUC is that you
can compare plans if you so wish.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Tweak partitioning documentation wording

  2. docs: Rework sections on partition pruning/exclusion

  3. Add GUC enable_partition_pruning