Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion?

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Actually, it looks like it'd be totally trivial to implement: just check
> rel->reloptkind == RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL to detect whether we're
> looking at an inheritance child.  (Actually this would also succeed
> for a UNION ALL member, but that's good because that's the other case
> where constraint exclusion is more likely to be useful.)

Covering the UNION ALL case would be terrific!  I was a bit concerned
since we just have UNION ALL views and don't use inheritance generally.

> So, barring objections, I'll go make this happen.  What do we want to
> call the intermediate constraint_exclusion value?  The first thing
> that comes to mind is constraint_exclusion = 'child', but perhaps
> someone has a better idea.

Not a huge fan of 'child' since it implies inheritance.  'union' doesn't
work for a similar reason.  What about 'partitioned'?
Thanks,
    Stephen