Hi
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 00:37 -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Fwiw I find the idea of having a separate "aux" table kind of
> awkward.
> It'll seem strange to users not familiar with the history and without
> any clear idea why the fields are split.
Greg, thank you for your attention and for your thought.
I've just completed the 6th version of a patch implementing idea
proposed by Julien Rouhaud, i.e. without auxiliary statistics. 6th
version will reset current min/max fields to zeros until the first plan
or execute. I've decided to use zeros here because planning statistics
is zero in case of disabled tracking. I think sampling solution could
easily handle this.
--
Regards, Andrei Zubkov
