Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > If we do need to do this, perhaps we should change the older parameter
> > to be partition_exclusion.
>
> Yeah, if we do want to do something about this then changing the name of
> the existing GUC would be a lot less work. However, partition_exclusion
> seems to imply that it *only* applies to partitioned tables, which is
> not the case...
Perhaps
table_exclusion = {on, off, partition}
Of course, constraint_exclusion should continue to work as a synonym for
backwards compatibility, but it wouldn't be documented.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
