2010/10/7 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Vincenzo Romano (vincenzo.rom...@notorand.it) wrote: >> Which kind of information are you thinking about? >> I think that the stuff you put into the CHECK condition for the table >> will say it all. > > The problem is that CHECK conditions can contain just about anything, > hence the planner needs to deal with that possibility.
Not really. For partitioning there would be some constraints as you have in the DEFAULT values. >> Infact there you have not just the column names with relevant values, but the >> actual expression(s) to be checked, > > Yes, that would be the problem. Proving something based on expressions > is alot more time consuming and complicated than being explicitly told > what goes where. Consuming computing resources at DDL-time should be OK if that will lead to big savings at DML-time (run-time), my opinion. It'd be just like compile time optimizations. > Stephen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkyt3qMACgkQrzgMPqB3kiih3wCcCwLlvpDCjgG5LSgim/XGieEE > MsEAn0mHfAizDOpvepGXWTWlxHtJibA5 > =Szx4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Vincenzo Romano at NotOrAnd Information Technologies Software Hardware Networking Training Support Security -- NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
