Horton

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

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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: 2018-05-10T17:38:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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.
>
>
​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.

David J.
​

Commits

  1. Tweak partitioning documentation wording

  2. docs: Rework sections on partition pruning/exclusion

  3. Add GUC enable_partition_pruning