Re: [HACKERS] KSQO parameter

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Is there any value to KQSO parameter? It was for complex OR clauses. I
> > thought Tom fixed most of that.
>
> The last set of tests that I did (~7.0) showed that it was still
> marginally faster than the default approach. Not a "must have"
> like it used to be for those queries, though.
>
> As of 7.1 it is disabled anyway, because I didn't have time to update
> the KSQO code for the new implementation of UNION and friends.
>
> We should either update the code or remove it entirely. I still don't
> have the time or interest to do #1, but I'm not quite ready to do #2
> either ... does anyone out there want to work on it?

The following patch removes KSQO from GUC and the call to the function.
It also moves the main KSQO file into _deadcode. Applied.

ODBC folks, should I remove KSQO from the ODBC driver?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026