Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do you have any particular objection to taking the next step of removing
>> enum InhOption in favor of making inhOpt a bool?
> No, not really. I don't feel like it's an improvement, but you and
> Alvaro obviously do, so
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to credit anyone
>> as a reviewer, but hopefully nobody's going to mind that too much
>> considering this is a purely mechanical patch I wrote in 20 minutes.
>
> Do you h
Robert Haas writes:
> Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to credit anyone
> as a reviewer, but hopefully nobody's going to mind that too much
> considering this is a purely mechanical patch I wrote in 20 minutes.
Do you have any particular objection to taking the next step of rem
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> I agree. Patch attached, just removing the GUC and a fairly minimal
>> amount of the supporting infrastructure.
>
> +1 to removing the sql_inheritance GUC. The patch looks good to me.
Great, committed. I realize just now that I forgot to
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Any particular reason not to change inhOpt to be a simple boolean, and
> remove the enum?
No, no particular reason. I thought about it, but I didn't really see
any advantage in getting rid of the typedef.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: ht
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>> If we were going to do anything about this,
> >>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
> >
> >> Go for it.
> >
> >> Let's also remove the t
On 2016/12/17 10:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
If we were going to do anything about this,
my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
>>
>>> Go for it.
>>
>>> Let's also
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> If we were going to do anything about this,
>>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
>
>> Go for it.
>
>> Let's also remove the table* syntax then.
>
> Meh --- that m
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If we were going to do anything about this,
>> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
> Go for it.
> Let's also remove the table* syntax then.
Meh --- that might break existing queries, to what purpose?
We certainly sh
On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we were going to do anything about this,
> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
+1. This option is long past the intended shelf life.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To m
On 12/16/16 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> If we were going to do anything about this,
> my vote would be to remove sql_inheritance.
Go for it.
Let's also remove the table* syntax then.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> It occurs to me this probably isn't the only GUC that's basically just
> a foot gun at this point.
>
> Is 10 a good time to sweep and clear them?
We never make any progress trying to do these things "in bulk". If
you think there are other GU
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:05:21AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables:
> >
> > [breaks literally everything]
> >
> > I might be wrong, but IMO this should no
Robert Haas writes:
> An earlier version of Amit's patches tried to handle this by forcing
> sql_inheritance on for partitioned tables, but it wasn't
> well-implemented and I don't see the point anyway. Sure, turning off
> sql_inheritance off for partitioned tables produces stupid results.
> But
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Dmitry Ivanov wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Looks like "sql_inheritance" GUC is affecting partitioned tables:
>
> explain (costs off) select * from test;
> QUERY PLAN --
> Append
> -> Seq Scan on test
> -> Seq Scan o
15 matches
Mail list logo