| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Date: | 2022-11-22 16:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3460861.1669134900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> New patch version reporting for duty, sir. Please take it from here!
Why the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS? I'd supposed that there's going to be
one somewhere down inside the index or heap access --- do you have
reason to think there isn't?
Is it appropriate to count distinct pages, rather than just the
number of times we have to visit a heap tuple? That seems to
complicate the logic a good deal, and I'm not sure it's buying
much, especially since (as you noted) it's imprecise anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-11-22 16:40:01 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-22 16:29:40 | Re: fixing CREATEROLE |