David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 03:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Likewise, it might be
>> better to fix DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST beforehand, to detangle what
>> the effects of that are.
> I chatted to Andres and Thomas about this last week and their view
> made me think it might not be quite as clear-cut as "just bump it up a
> bunch because it's ridiculously low" that I had in mind. They
> mentioned about file_fdw and another one that appears to work on
> mmapped segments, which I don't recall if any names were mentioned.
Um ... DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST is postgres_fdw-specific, so I do not
see what connection some other FDW would have to it.
regards, tom lane
