On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally I think Alvaro's position is unduly conservative: to the
> extent
> >> that plans change it'd likely be for the better.  But I'm not excited
> >> enough to fight hard about it.
> > I don't really care enough.  We have received some complaints about
> > keeping plans stable, but maybe it's okay.
> The other side of the coin is that there haven't been so many requests for
> changing this; more than just this one, but not a groundswell.  So 9.5
> only seems like a good compromise unless we get more votes for back-patch.
> I reviewed the patch and concluded that it would be better to split
> compute_minimal_stats into two functions instead of sprinkling it so
> liberally with if's.  So I did that and pushed it.

Thanks, I was not really happy about all the checks because some of them
were rather implicit (e.g. num_mcv being 0 due to track being NULL, etc.).
Adding this as a separate function makes me feel safer.


Reply via email to