Re: Improving on MAX_CONVERSION_GROWTH

Hi,

On 2019-10-03 12:12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > In the meantime, I still think we should commit what I proposed in the
> > other thread (<974(dot)1569356381(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>), or something close to it.
> > Andres' proposal would perhaps be an improvement on that, but I don't
> > think it'll be ready anytime soon; and for sure we wouldn't risk
> > back-patching it, while I think we could back-patch what I suggested.
> > In any case, that patch is small enough that dropping it would be no big
> > loss if a better solution comes along.
>
> Not having heard any objections, I'll proceed with that. Andres is
> welcome to work on replacing it with his more-complicated idea...

Yea, what I'm proposing is clearly not backpatchable. So +1

> Maybe this point is an argument for pushing forward with Andres'
> approach, but I'm still dubious about the overall cost/benefit ratio
> of that concept.

I think if it were just for MAX_CONVERSION_GROWTH, I'd be inclined to
agree. But I think it has other advantages, so I'm mildy positivie that
it'll be an overall win...

Greetings,

Andres Freund