Re: Analyzing bug 8049

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This idea needs more fleshing out, but it's seeming awfully attractive
> right now. The big problem with it is that it's going to be a more
> invasive patch than I feel terribly comfortable about back-patching.
> However, I'm not sure there's much choice, because I don't see any narrow
> fix for 9.2 that would not result in very substantial degradation of its
> optimization ability. We can't just lobotomize equivalence-class
> processing.
>
> The plan I'm considering is to get this written and committed to HEAD
> in the next week, so that it can go out in 9.3beta1. After the patch
> has survived a reasonable amount of beta testing, I'd be more comfortable
> about back-patching into 9.2.

I'm not very sanguine about the chances that back-patching this won't
provoke any screams of agony ... but I don't have a better idea,
either. Letting queries return wrong answers isn't a superior
solution, for sure.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company