On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> I don't see much difference in the old and new wording. The word
>> "generally" confuses more than clarifying the cases when the planning
>> cost curves do not change with the number of
On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> I don't see much difference in the old and new wording. The word
> "generally" confuses more than clarifying the cases when the planning
> cost curves do not change with the number of relations i.e.
> partitions.
I added that to remove the fal
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:02 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>> The attached is my attempt at putting this right.
>>
>> I don't feel entirely right about the way this seems to treat
>> inheritanc
On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> The attached is my attempt at putting this right.
>
> I don't feel entirely right about the way this seems to treat
> inheritance and partitioning as two entirely separate features; that's
>
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I just noticed a comment which has been made a little outdated by the
> partition-wise join code from commit f49842d1. The comment claims that
> inheritance children don't add to the effort required in join
> planning, while that still may be t
Hi,
I just noticed a comment which has been made a little outdated by the
partition-wise join code from commit f49842d1. The comment claims that
inheritance children don't add to the effort required in join
planning, while that still may be true, we should probably mention
that partitioned tables
