On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1 March 2017 at 01:36, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> I don't know which way you're thinking of fixing this, but a planner patch >> to implement faster partition-pruning will have taken care of this, I >> think. As you may know, even declarative partitioned tables currently >> depend on constraint exclusion for partition-pruning and planner's current >> approach of handling inheritance requires to open all the child tables >> (partitions), whereas the new approach hopefully shouldn't need to do >> that. I am not sure if looking for a more localized fix for this would be >> worthwhile, although I may be wrong. > > What "new approach" are we discussing? > > Is there a patch or design discussion?
Neither at the moment. As Aleksander said in his reply I was referring to Dmitry Ivanov's plan of porting pg_pathman's planner functionality to core that he mentioned on the declarative partitioning thread back in December [1]. Thanks, Amit [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/426b2b01-61e0-43aa-bd84-c6fcf516f1c3%40postgrespro.ru -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
