On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >>> * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >>>> I don't really understand this. Who can set up an inherited table >>>> structure but can't remember to turn on constraint_exclusion? > >> This new change also adds the constraint exclusion overhead only for >> inhertance (by default) so it should slightly improve query peformance. > > Right, I think that's the real winning argument for having this: it > gets the benefit of c_e for partitioned tables without imposing overhead > for non-partitioned tables. See Josh B's remarks upthread about > actually going to the trouble of turning c_e off and on on-the-fly to > try to approximate that result. >
what i still doesn't understand is why we need a third value at all? why we simply can't make the new 'partition' behaviour be the default for c_e on? -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL AsesorÃa y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
