On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs 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
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 17:41 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Actually, he has a very good point; we're going to get a *lot* of
> confusion from the users on this one. I just wish I'd noticed the issue
> before.
The issue has been mentioned several times, but must have gotten lost
among the other email
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 23:12 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Perhaps
> table_exclusion = {on, off, partition}
Sounds good to me.
> Of course, constraint_exclusion should continue to work as a synonym for
> backwards compatibility, but it wouldn't be documented.
+1.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
-
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs 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
>
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:20:45 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs 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 w
On 12/7/09 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
>> It's not work you personally would have to do, and the confusion we've
>> already bought with this naming scheme is already evident.
>
> What confusion? The only person complaining is you.
Actually, he has a very good point; we're go
Simon Riggs 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*
David Fetter writes:
> It's not work you personally would have to do, and the confusion we've
> already bought with this naming scheme is already evident.
What confusion? The only person complaining is you.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsq
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 13:53 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
> feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away from
> an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint Exclusion,
> which has to do with queries over
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:11:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
> > feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away
> > from an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint
> > Exclusion,
David Fetter writes:
> We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
> feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away from
> an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint Exclusion,
> which has to do with queries over partitioned tables and like
> enti
David Fetter wrote:
Folks,
We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away from
an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint Exclusion,
which has to do with queries over partitioned tables and like
entiti
Folks,
We have a very unfortunate naming situation with Jeff Davis's new
feature, namely the shorter name, which is one permutation away from
an existing and entirely unrelated feature: Constraint Exclusion,
which has to do with queries over partitioned tables and like
entities.
Renaming it, whic
13 matches
Mail list logo
