Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO
Date: 2004-01-22 18:22:22
Message-ID: 87n08f9735.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I'm assuming that the original author of the GEQO code already did
> that testing ...

Removing the code without bothering to verify this assumption is a
little unwise, IMHO: given the low quality of the rest of the GEQO
code, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the present default is not
optimal in some or all circumstances.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Natoli 2004-01-22 22:57:53 Re: What's left?
Previous Message lnd 2004-01-22 17:56:02 Re: [GENERAL] tablespaces a priority for 7.5?