On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This idea needs more fleshing out, but it's seeming awfully attractive > right now. The big problem with it is that it's going to be a more > invasive patch than I feel terribly comfortable about back-patching. > However, I'm not sure there's much choice, because I don't see any narrow > fix for 9.2 that would not result in very substantial degradation of its > optimization ability. We can't just lobotomize equivalence-class > processing. > > The plan I'm considering is to get this written and committed to HEAD > in the next week, so that it can go out in 9.3beta1. After the patch > has survived a reasonable amount of beta testing, I'd be more comfortable > about back-patching into 9.2.
I'm not very sanguine about the chances that back-patching this won't provoke any screams of agony ... but I don't have a better idea, either. Letting queries return wrong answers isn't a superior solution, for sure. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
