Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I just thought of a possible compromise though: maybe we could invent an > > intermediate constraint_exclusion setting that makes the checks only for > > inheritance-child tables. This would avoid the overhead for simple > > queries and still get the benefit for most of the cases where it's > > actually useful. I'm not sure how hard this'd be to shoehorn into the > > planner, ... > > Actually, it looks like it'd be totally trivial to implement: just check > rel->reloptkind == RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL to detect whether we're > looking at an inheritance child. (Actually this would also succeed > for a UNION ALL member, but that's good because that's the other case > where constraint exclusion is more likely to be useful.) > > So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen. What do we want to > call the intermediate constraint_exclusion value? The first thing > that comes to mind is constraint_exclusion = 'child', but perhaps > someone has a better idea.
Wow, this will be a great leap forward for usability. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
