On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:52 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:27 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, yes, the EPQ path does not need to compete with others in add_path, > > so its cost does not matter too much. And the comment just above > > GetExistingLocalJoinPath says: > > > > * Since the plan created using this path will presumably only be used to > > * execute EPQ checks, efficiency of the path is not a concern. > > > > But still I feel it's not a good practice to not update the cost and > > width fields after calling add_new_columns_to_pathtarget(). How about we > > add some comments here explaining why we do not need to adjust the > > estimates for the EPQ path? > > I agree with you on that point. I’ll update the patch as such in the > next version.
Here is an updated patch for that. Other changes:
* I modified the patch so that we adjust the tlist of the EPQ path if necessary, using the idea discussed upthread. * I tweaked other comments a little bit.
