| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Dimitri Fontaine <dim(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| Date: | 2009-07-11 04:21:43 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070907102121j730ef196s103b5efbb28a49ea@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> You do, but it's been pretty rare in my experience, and we're
>> considering alternatives which give a lot less flexibility that this.
>
> I dunno about "considering". We've already wasted vastly more time on
> this than it's worth. AFAIR there has never been one single user
> request for the ability to partially constrain join order. I think we
> should do an enable_join_ordering boolean and quit wasting brainpower on
> the issue.
Patch attached.
...Robert
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| enable_join_ordering.patch | text/x-diff | 18.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Theo Schlossnagle | 2009-07-11 05:17:27 | Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-11 04:19:52 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |