Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for new SET variables for optimizer costs

At 16:29 5/02/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>SET variable name Internal variable Proposed default
>
>RANDOM_PAGE_COST random_page_cost 4.0
>
>Cost of fetching a disk block nonsequentially (as a multiple of the cost
>of a sequential block fetch).
>
>CPU_TUPLE_COST cpu_tuple_cost 0.01
>
>
>CPU_INDEX_TUPLE_COST cpu_index_tuple_cost 0.001
>
>CPU_OPERATOR_COST cpu_operator_cost 0.0025
>
>ENABLE_SEQSCAN enable_seqscan ON
>
>ENABLE_INDEXSCAN enable_indexscan ON
>
>ENABLE_TIDSCAN enable_tidscan ON
>
>ENABLE_SORT enable_sort ON
>
>ENABLE_NESTLOOP enable_nestloop ON
>
>ENABLE_MERGEJOIN enable_mergejoin ON
>
>ENABLE_HASHJOIN enable_hashjoin ON
>

Any chance of prefixing the 'set' variable names with 'PG_' or 'PG_OPT_' or
something similar? Or doing something else to differentiate them from
user-declared SQL variables? I have no idea if user-declared SQL variables
are an SQL92 thing, but these variables are 'system' things, and some kind
of differentiation seems like a good idea.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422 | _________ \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/