Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think this is basically a planner problem and should be fixed in the
>> planner, not by expecting users to make significant changes in
>> application logic in order to create an indirect effect.
> I would agree if I thought that were possible, but I'm skeptical about
> your proposed solution.
Fair enough --- maybe it will work well enough, or maybe it won't.
But the same can be said of every other proposal that's been made.
I'm in favor of trying the simpler approaches first.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 18:17:02|
|Subject: Re: ProcSignalSlot vs. PGPROC |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-26 18:00:22|
|Subject: Re: ecpg tests broken by pgindent run|