| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | arne(dot)roland(at)malkut(dot)net |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Date: | 2024-05-24 18:47:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaTiKiMh7tGDbC1rz_Yvu_Op=uENJJ0i_xr2Uu_fBWOSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 2:02 PM <arne(dot)roland(at)malkut(dot)net> wrote:
> I am not sure, whether it's really a bug. I personally wouldn't be brave
> enough to back patch this. I don't want to deal with complaining end
> users. Suddenly their optimizer, which always had horrible estimates,
> was actually able to do harmful stuff with them. Only due to a minor
> version upgrade. I think that's a bad idea to backpatch something with
> complex performance implications. Especially since they might even be
> based on potentially inaccurate data...
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-05-24 18:54:49 | Document use of ldapurl with LDAP simple bind |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-05-24 18:26:48 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |