enable_joinremoval
in [PgSql]
|
From: Alex Hunsaker on 29 Mar 2010 15:31 On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > You're not addressing the original point. I have been asked how would > users know which tables have been removed and whether there is a way of > checking that. Uhh... they wont be in the explain output... Seems simple enough. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Simon Riggs on 29 Mar 2010 15:41 On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:31 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > You're not addressing the original point. I have been asked how would > > users know which tables have been removed and whether there is a way of > > checking that. > > Uhh... they wont be in the explain output... Seems simple enough. That is exactly what I replied, though nobody felt that was a great answer. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Alex Hunsaker on 29 Mar 2010 15:54 On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 13:41, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Uhh... they wont be in the explain output... Â Seems simple enough. > > That is exactly what I replied, though nobody felt that was a great > answer. Maybe I missed it, but why exactly do they care? About the only reason I can think *i* would care is: If I was running the same SQL on multiple database products (like mysql) and thought "Sweet now I can use this new feature to cleanup my sql so it runs better on product X or version of postgres Y". Is there some other reason other than it would be _cool_ to know? Or is it FUD that it might be buggy and so they wish to be able to turn it off? It comes to mind you can probably do this with an plannerhook (whatever happened to those hooks to auto create/recommend indexes?) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 29 Mar 2010 15:55 Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:31 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> You're not addressing the original point. I have been asked how would >>> users know which tables have been removed and whether there is a way of >>> checking that. >> >> Uhh... they wont be in the explain output... Seems simple enough. > That is exactly what I replied, though nobody felt that was a great > answer. Who complained about that exactly? It seems like a perfectly appropriate answer to me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 29 Mar 2010 15:57
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:31 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> You're not addressing the original point. I have been asked how would >>>> users know which tables have been removed and whether there is a way of >>>> checking that. >>> >>> Uhh... they wont be in the explain output... Seems simple enough. > >> That is exactly what I replied, though nobody felt that was a great >> answer. > > Who complained about that exactly? It seems like a perfectly > appropriate answer to me. Jaime Casanova. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |