On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:50 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:23:49PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Inheritance queries would continue to act as they do now, where an > > excluded table is *not* shown; this is to allow for sensible size > > EXPLAINs when we have 100s of child tables. > > Since it's also possible to do partitioning with UNION ALL, maybe it > would be better if there was an option to explain that told it either to > show or not show info about eliminated partitions. That would seem to > serve the general case better than coding it according to table type.
Can you think up the syntax, so we can comment on that proposal? Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
