On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> 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 false claim that inheritance children don't make the join problem more complex. This was only true before we had partition-wise joins. I've re-read my original patch and I don't really see the problem with it. The comment is talking about inheritance child relations, which you could either interpret to mean INHERITS (sometable), or some table listed in pg_inherits. The statement that I added forces me into thinking of the former rather than the latter, so I don't really see any issue. I'm going to leave it here. I don't want to spend too much effort rewording a comment. My vote is for the original patch I sent. I only changed it because Robert complained that technically an inheritance child could actually be a partition. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
