Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86A61337BA3 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:52:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24623-05 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 14:52:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net (tamriel.snowman.net [72.66.115.51]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78531337B77 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:52:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 14E3B22903; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:52:19 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Vincenzo Romano Cc: Robert Haas , Heikki Linnakangas , Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: On Scalability Message-ID: <20101007145219.GU26232@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <1280427410.8613.44.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> <4CAD769D.9090301@enterprisedb.com> <1286437290.2304.192.camel@ebony> <4CAD7BED.4050009@enterprisedb.com> <20101007142927.GT26232@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dN72Vk/q4pSfSeuV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-1-amd64 (x86_64) X-Uptime: 10:40:21 up 406 days, 2:05, 14 users, load average: 0.22, 0.09, 0.08 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201010/462 X-Sequence-Number: 171502 --dN72Vk/q4pSfSeuV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline * Vincenzo Romano (vincenzo.romano@notorand.it) wrote: > Which kind of information are you thinking about? > I think that the stuff you put into the CHECK condition for the table > will say it all. The problem is that CHECK conditions can contain just about anything, hence the planner needs to deal with that possibility. > Infact there you have not just the column names with relevant values, but the > actual expression(s) to be checked, Yes, that would be the problem. Proving something based on expressions is alot more time consuming and complicated than being explicitly told what goes where. Stephen --dN72Vk/q4pSfSeuV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkyt3qMACgkQrzgMPqB3kiih3wCcCwLlvpDCjgG5LSgim/XGieEE MsEAn0mHfAizDOpvepGXWTWlxHtJibA5 =Szx4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dN72Vk/q4pSfSeuV--