| From: | Jim Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: verbose cost estimate |
| Date: | 2019-12-09 15:38:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1575905932422-0.post@n3.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
+1, adding that sort of structure to Cost would get rejected out of hand.
however, having a 'disabled' bit be part of the cost structure is something
that I would support. This has been discussed previously, but even adding
one bit to Cost doesn't have everyone's support. The purpose of a disabled
bit would be to distinguish plans that had no disable_cost added to them
from plans that did so that the planner can choose the minimum cost
non-disabled plan, if any such plan exists, or choose the minimum cost plan
otherwise. A disable count could be used, but even a bool would probably
suffice.
thank you,
/Jim F
-----
Jim Finnerty, AWS, Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL
--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-09 15:42:38 | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) |
| Previous Message | Julien Delplanque | 2019-12-09 15:35:01 | Questions about PostgreSQL implementation details |