On Apr 5, 2016 00:31, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Shulgin <alex.shul...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to
> >> revert the aspect of 3d3bf62f3 that made us work from "d" (the observed
> >> number of distinct values in the sample) rather than stadistinct (the
> >> extrapolated estimate for the table).  On reflection I think that
> >> inconsistent with the theory behind the old MCV-cutoff rule.  It
> >> matter if we were going to replace the cutoff rule with something else,
> >> but it's beginning to sound like that won't happen for 9.6.
> > Please feel free to do what you think is in the best interest of the
> > preparing 9.6 for the freeze.  I'm not all that familiar with the
> > but I guess reverting this early might save some head-scratching if some
> > interesting interactions of this change combined with some others are
> > to show up.
> I've reverted that bit; so we still have the improvements associated with
> ignoring nulls, but nothing else at the moment.  I'll set this commitfest
> item back to Waiting on Author, just in case you are able to make some
> more progress before the end of the week.

OK, though it's unlikely that I'll get productive again before next week,
but maybe someone who has also been following this thread wants to step in?


Reply via email to