| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-10-02 14:04:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYOiejoKD3Zx=wcYbsh3dpqtCfOp1=EHEgdTVXtNVd-3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 4:55 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 06:17, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > Why did you change "Disabled" from an integer to a boolean?
>
> I just don't think "Disabled Nodes" is all that self-documenting and
> I'm also unsure why the full integer value of disabled_nodes is
> required over just displaying the boolean value of if the node is
> disabled or not. Won't readers look at the remainder of the plan to
> determine information about which other nodes are disabled? Do we need
> to give them a running total?
I don't think this will produce the right answer in all cases because
disabled node counts don't propagate across subquery levels.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-10-02 14:08:50 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-10-02 12:19:35 | Re: not null constraints, again |