Re: Patch for removng unused targets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Patch for removng unused targets
Date
Msg-id 51FC2B60.2070406@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for removng unused targets  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch for removng unused targets  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Reading between the lines of the original submission at
> <CAPpHfdtG5qoHoD+w=Tz3wC3fZ=b8i21=V5xandBFM=DTo-Yg=Q@mail.gmail.com>,
> I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe
> it's worth applying this type of patch anyway.  I'd want to rejigger
> it to be aware of the cost implications though, at least for
> grouping_planner's choices.

Hmm.  Can we optimize for the KNN case, without causing the issues which
you warned about earlier in your post?  I'm really wary of any
"optimization" which operates completely outside of the cost model; the
ones we have (abort-early plans, for example) are already among our
primary sources of bad plan issues.

> 
> Comments?

So, Returned With Feedback, or move it to September?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: how to pass data (tuples) to worker processes?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] 9.3beta2: Failure to pg_upgrade