Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new
> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be
> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned
> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor
> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of,
> say, 10 for both these cases.
That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still
toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long
some of these functions might take...
Thanks,
Stephen