Re: verbose cost estimate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Finnerty
Subject Re: verbose cost estimate
Date
Msg-id 1575905932422-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: verbose cost estimate  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: verbose cost estimate  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
+1, adding that sort of structure to Cost would get rejected out of hand.

however, having a 'disabled' bit be part of the cost structure is something
that I would support.  This has been discussed previously, but even adding
one bit to Cost doesn't have everyone's support.  The purpose of a disabled
bit would be to distinguish plans that had no disable_cost added to them
from plans that did so that the planner can choose the minimum cost
non-disabled plan, if any such plan exists, or choose the minimum cost plan
otherwise.  A disable count could be used, but even a bool would probably
suffice.

thank you,

    /Jim F



-----
Jim Finnerty, AWS, Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL
--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Delplanque
Date:
Subject: Questions about PostgreSQL implementation details
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)