Re: pg_plan_advice

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
Date: 2026-03-19 22:02:28
Message-ID: 425636D5-A1D2-4558-A8D9-538B5FF9C9ED@yesql.se
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 19 Mar 2026, at 21:38, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> We can continue the
> discussion about reducing the cost at the same time; again, I am
> definitely not saying that it isn't legitimate to be concerned about
> the CPU cycles expended running these tests, but those CPU cycles have
> found three separate problems in two days, which is not nothing.

With that in mind it could perhaps be worth to have this as a v19 open and
keep the more exhaustive test for a bit to see if more things shake loose?

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-03-19 22:03:14 Re: pg_plan_advice
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2026-03-19 21:59:07 Re: Read-only connection mode for AI workflows.