From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dimitri Fontaine <dim(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
Date: | 2009-07-10 15:22:43 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070907100822n4e723d9dnbbf6bbf6a573fda1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, the reason I'm not voting for #3 is that it looks like a lot of
> work to implement something that would basically be a planner hint,
> which I'm generally against; furthermore, it's a hint that there's been
> no demand for. (We're not even certain that anyone is using the ability
> to *fully* specify the join order, much less wanting some undetermined
> compromise between manual and automatic control.) And anyway I didn't
> hear anyone volunteering to do it. So the realistic alternatives are
> #1, #2, or "do nothing"; and out of those I like #2.
I took a look at this and it seems that #3 can be implemented with
essentially no additional code (the handful of lines I added where
more than balanced out by some simplifications in ruleutils.c). Of
course you still don't have to like it. :-)
Patch attached.
...Robert
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
collapse_limit.patch | text/x-diff | 29.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-07-10 15:26:17 | Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format |
Previous Message | decibel | 2009-07-10 15:19:38 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |