| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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>, andrew(at)ankane(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-08-23 17:37:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobuPzMHUp11O9PP2tMBE_pse8p5J5_829eHEpZd0uibAg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 1:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It looks like amcostestimate could change the path's disabled_nodes
> count, since that's set up before invoking amcostestimate. I guess
> it could be set to INT_MAX to have a comparable solution to before.
It's probably better to add a more modest value, to avoid overflow.
You could add a million or so and be far away from overflow while
presumably still being more disabled than any other path.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-23 17:42:53 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-23 17:26:26 | Re: On disable_cost |