Tom,
> Wasn't this exact proposal discussed and rejected awhile back?
We rejected Greenplum's much more invasive resource manager, because it
created a large performance penalty on small queries whether or not it was
turned on. However, I don't remember any rejection of an idea as simple
as a cost limit rejection.
This would, IMHO, be very useful for production instances of PostgreSQL.
The penalty for mis-rejection of a poorly costed query is much lower than
the penalty for having a bad query eat all your CPU.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL
San Francisco
