On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stepping back a bit, my current view of this area is: disable_cost is
> highly imperfect both as an idea and as implemented in PostgreSQL.
> Although I'm discovering that the current implementation gets more
> things right than I had realized, it also sometimes gets things wrong.
> The original poster gave an example of that, and there are others.
> Furthermore, the current implementation has some weird
> inconsistencies. Therefore, I would like something better.
FWIW I always found those weird inconsistencies to be annoying at
best, and confusing at worst. I speak as somebody that uses
disable_cost a lot.
I certainly wouldn't ask anybody to make it a priority for that reason
alone -- it's not *that* bad. I've given my opinion on this because
it's already under discussion.
--
Peter Geoghegan
