On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat
> 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
On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat
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 fal
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:02 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>> The attached is my attempt at putting this right.
>>
>> I don't feel entirely right about the way this seems to treat
>> inheritanc
On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> The attached is my attempt at putting this right.
>
> I don't feel entirely right about the way this seems to treat
> inheritance and partitioning as two entirely separate features; that's
>
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I just noticed a comment which has been made a little outdated by the
> partition-wise join code from commit f49842d1. The comment claims that
> inheritance children don't add to the effort required in join
> planning, while that still may be t
