| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dim(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| Date: | 2009-07-07 21:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | A0E15881-6B55-4B09-B2CB-98A8B651141A@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:03 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov
> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> if we think it's reasonable for people to want to explicitly specify
>> the join order
>
> Regardless of the syntax (GUC or otherwise), that is an optimizer
> hint. I thought we were trying to avoid those.
I guess my point is that there's not a lot of obvious benefit in
allowing the functionality to exist but handicapping it so that it's
useful in as few cases as possible. If the consensus is that we want
half a feature (but not more or less than half), that's OK with me,
but it's not obvious to me why we should choose to want that.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-07 21:56:12 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-07-07 21:41:46 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |