Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm reasonably convinced that this is a good fix for HEAD, but am of two
>> minds whether to back-patch it or not. The problem complained of in
>> bug #7598 may seem a bit narrow, but the real point is that whether you
>> write a cast explicitly or not shouldn't affect planning if the
>> semantics are the same. This might well be a significant though
>> previously unrecognized performance issue, particularly for people who
>> use varchar columns heavily.
> I have had a few bad experiences with people getting *really* upset
> about plan changes in minor releases, so I would be disinclined to
> back-patch this, even if we're fairly sure that it will be an
> improvement in most/all cases. It's just not worth the risk of
> discovering otherwise.
I stuck it into 9.2, but not further back.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
