Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-05-10T18:05:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Seems like if it stays the name is good - but at this point no has voiced
>> opposition to removing it and making the name a moot point.
>
> If we think the probability of bugs is 0%, then I'm all for removing it.
> I don't.  I vote to remove the GUC in a couple of releases, once it's
> proven completely useless.

No feature ever written has a 0% probability of bugs.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Tweak partitioning documentation wording

  2. docs: Rework sections on partition pruning/exclusion

  3. Add GUC enable_partition_pruning