On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Personally I think Alvaro's position is unduly conservative: to the extent >> that plans change it'd likely be for the better. But I'm not excited >> enough to fight hard about it.
> I don't really care enough. We have received some complaints about > keeping plans stable, but maybe it's okay.
The other side of the coin is that there haven't been so many requests for changing this; more than just this one, but not a groundswell. So 9.5 only seems like a good compromise unless we get more votes for back-patch.
I reviewed the patch and concluded that it would be better to split compute_minimal_stats into two functions instead of sprinkling it so liberally with if's. So I did that and pushed it.
Thanks, I was not really happy about all the checks because some of them were rather implicit (e.g. num_mcv being 0 due to track being NULL, etc.). Adding this as a separate function makes me feel safer.
