On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 11:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > OK, I'll write a patch for that; and a consensus emerges that we > > should also have enable_joinremoval, then I will add that as well. I > > think the only argument for NOT having enable_joinremoval is that you > > can always modify the query to say SELECT * rather than some more > > specific SELECT list, > > Uh, no, the argument for not having enable_joinremoval is that it's > useless. > > In particular, I categorically deny the argument that putting it in will > reduce user confusion. If anyone is confused because EXPLAIN shows that > some table isn't getting joined to, you think that the fact that > somewhere in the manual is a mention of enable_joinremoval will > un-confuse them? If they knew that switch was there or what it did, > they wouldn't be confused to begin with.
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. That is not a request for a tuning feature, or something to reduce user confusion. If you don't like "enable_joinremoval" that's fine but it would be good to answer the original request with an alternative proposal. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
