Re: On disable_cost

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2024-08-21 14:29:23
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYhGYHGw+TKSJc=VjmMF897nG8X8kydoX7TaPOJhcB8PA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 12:53 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > That absolutely is the expectation, and we'd better be careful not
> > to break it.
>
> I have every intention of not breaking it. :-)

I went ahead and committed these patches. I know there's some debate
over whether we want to show the # of disabled nodes and if so whether
it should be controlled by COSTS, and I suspect I haven't completely
allayed David's concerns about the initial_cost_XXX functions although
I think that I did the right thing. But, I don't have the impression
that anyone is desperately opposed to the basic concept, so I think it
makes sense to put these into the tree and see what happens. We have
quite a bit of time left in this release cycle to uncover bugs, hear
from users or other developers, etc. about what problems there may be
with this. If we end up deciding to reverse course or need to fix a
bunch of stuff, so be it, but let's see what the feedback is.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-08-21 14:43:19 Re: configure failures on chipmunk
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-08-21 14:00:40 Re: Requiring LLVM 14+ in PostgreSQL 18