On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 12:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> It's my understanding that the philosophy of the PGDG in the past has > >> been to avoid putting any kind of hints into the system, focusing > >> rather an improving the planning of queries. > > > It's not a specific hint, its a general goal setting. > > Right. There are definitely places where we've made engineering > judgements to not attempt a particular type of optimization because it'd > be too expensive compared to the typical payoff. Simon's idea has some > merit for providing a framework to deal with that type of situation. > However, just adding a GUC variable isn't going to make anything happen > --- we'd need some concrete plans about what we'd do with it.
Well, I'm convinced the egg came first. So I figure to put the framework in place and then start reviewing things to see if they can be categorised. Plus I want new optimizer features to be considered in the light of the new framework. This also allows us a way of handling optimizer performance bugs. We just reclassify certain cases as being costs-more solutions, rather than stripping the code out entirely. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
