From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15383: Join Filter cost estimation problem in 10.5 |
Date: | 2020-09-25 01:49:15 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvrGnJpE=eHPvSPGd1mmxGKUenyCFHbzG9c0cyqAeq_3SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 18:33, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:10:26PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > ... putting it in a place we might one day look again might be better :-)
>
> So am I getting correctly that you are suggesting to wipe out entirely
> the existing TODO list and recreate a new one? That works for me :p
What I meant was, I never look at the TODO list on the wiki. I don't
think it's a good place to put it if we want to maintain the
motivation to get the problem fixed.
> Except for that, I don't have a better idea than creating a new page
> on the wiki, like something named after planner improvements, if we
> don't want to keep this stuff in the CF for now.
It seems a bit backwards to me to move a reminder for an item that we
want to fix to somewhere less visible. Feels a bit like sweeping bugs
under the carpet. That does not make them go away.
Rather than see the item moved off somewhere else, my personal view is
that if people don't like the item being there then the likely best
course of action is for them to have a look at the problem and/or the
patch and voice their opinion on it and try to get the discussion
going again. If the discussion concludes with that the problem is not
big enough to warrant fixing it then we can leave a note and withdraw
the item.
However, to me it feels like a good time to make these sort of changes
in the planner. There's still plenty of time for people to complain if
they don't like what we've done before PG14 ships.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Xinyu Liu | 2020-09-25 02:43:55 | Re: BUG #16624: Query Optimizer - Performance bug related to predicate simplification |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-09-25 00:46:58 | Re: PG13 pg_receivewal failing |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-09-25 01:51:22 | Re: Logical replication from PG v13 and below to PG v14 (devel version) is not working. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-25 01:27:39 | Re: Memory allocation abstraction in pgcrypto |