Re: A minor adjustment to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys

Hi,

>> I see the reasoning behind the proposed change, but I'm not convinced
>> that there will be any measurable performance improvements. Firstly,
>> compare_path_costs() is rather cheap. Secondly, require_parallel_safe
>> is `false` in most of the cases. Last but not least, one should prove
>> that this particular place is a bottleneck under given loads. I doubt
>> it is. Most of the time it's a network, disk I/O or locks.
>>
>> So unless the author can provide benchmarks that show measurable
>> benefits of the change I suggest rejecting it.
>
> Hmm, I doubt that there would be any measurable performance gains from
> this minor tweak. I think this tweak is more about being cosmetic. But
> I'm OK if it is deemed unnecessary and thus rejected.

During the triage of the patches submitted for the September CF a
consensus was reached [1] to mark this patch as Rejected.

[1]: https://postgr.es/m/0737f444-59bb-ac1d-2753-873c40da0840%40eisentraut.org

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev