| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-05-06 20:30:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn7t3KZEwDwMFrXzpZKKyKARtpMxmjvUvjOjVRpyQh-Fw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Stepping back a bit, my current view of this area is: disable_cost is
> highly imperfect both as an idea and as implemented in PostgreSQL.
> Although I'm discovering that the current implementation gets more
> things right than I had realized, it also sometimes gets things wrong.
> The original poster gave an example of that, and there are others.
> Furthermore, the current implementation has some weird
> inconsistencies. Therefore, I would like something better.
FWIW I always found those weird inconsistencies to be annoying at
best, and confusing at worst. I speak as somebody that uses
disable_cost a lot.
I certainly wouldn't ask anybody to make it a priority for that reason
alone -- it's not *that* bad. I've given my opinion on this because
it's already under discussion.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2024-05-06 20:59:51 | Re: 2024-05-09 release announcement draft |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-06 20:10:44 | Re: On disable_cost |