| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-07-02 20:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3134326.1719953021@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, I don't really know where to go from here. I mean, I think that
> three committers (David, Heikki, yourself) have expressed some
> concerns about changing the behavior. So maybe we shouldn't. But I
> don't understand how it's reasonable to have two very similarly named
> GUCs behave (1) inconsistently with each other and (2) in a way that
> cannot be guessed from the documentation.
If the documentation isn't adequate, that's certainly an improvable
situation. It doesn't seem hard:
- Enables or disables the query planner's use of index-scan plan
- types. The default is <literal>on</literal>.
+ Enables or disables the query planner's use of index-scan plan
+ types (including index-only scans).
+ The default is <literal>on</literal>.
More to the point, if we do change the longstanding meaning of this
GUC, that will *also* require documentation work IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-07-02 21:31:48 | Re: collect_corrupt_items_vacuum.patch |
| Previous Message | Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi | 2024-07-02 20:27:44 | Re: call for applications: mentoring program for code contributors |