On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:23, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's kind of an odd artifact, but maybe it's fine in > practice.
I agree it's an odd artifact, but it's not a regression over the status quo. Achieving that was the intent of my suggestion: A change that improves some cases, but regresses nowhere. > I say again that it's good to test out a bunch of scenarios > and see what shakes out. Testing a bunch of scenarios to find a good one sounds like a good idea, which can probably give us a more optimal heuristic. But it also sounds like a lot of work, and probably results in a lot of discussion. That extra effort might mean that we're not going to commit any change for PG17 (or even at all). If so, then I'd rather have a modest improvement from my refinement of Melih's proposal, than none at all.
