Re: [HACKERS] GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction
Date
Msg-id 6871.1209744097@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction  ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] GUC parameter cursors_tuple_fraction  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-patches
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> * We've said here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html that we
>> "Don't want hints". If that's what we really think, then this patch must
>> surely be rejected because its a hint... That isn't my view. I *now*
>> think we do need hints of various kinds.

> cursors_tuple_fraction or OPTIMIZE FOR xxx ROWS isn't the kind of hints
> we've said "no" to in the past.

More to the point, I think what we've generally meant by "hints" is
nonstandard decoration on individual SQL commands (either explicit
syntax or one of those interpret-some-comments kluges).  Simon is
reading the policy in such a way that it would forbid all the planner
cost parameters, which is surely not what is intended.

I see this as being basically another cost parameter, and as such
I don't think it needs more documentation than any of those have.
(Now admittedly you could argue that they could all use a ton more
documentation than they now have, but it's not reasonable to insist
on just this one meeting a different standard.)

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ
Next
From: "Mark Wong"
Date:
Subject: Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ