Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I don't think that waiting for our plans for a more robust partitioning
> implementation is a reason to put off improvements to the implementation
> we have.
The complaint I had was that this patch consisted largely of code that
we'd want to throw away once a better partitioning implementation is in
place. I don't object to partial patches that move us forward on the
agreed-on path, but this one seemed to be going sideways.
> What about simply eliminating joins between partitioned tables by
> checking which columns' constraints match exactly or are subsets?
If it could be done with a <emphasis>small</> amount of throwaway
code, maybe ...
regards, tom lane