Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> That would break code that tries to parse that stuff, eg depesz.com.
> I don't believe Jim was suggesting that we back-patch such a change. I don't either. > Changing it in a new major release seems entirely reasonable. It's still a crock though. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to change the nodeBitmap code so that when EXPLAIN ANALYZE is active, it expends extra effort to try to produce a rowcount number. We could certainly run through the result bitmap and count the number of exact-TID bits. I don't see a practical way of doing something with lossy page bits, but maybe those occur infrequently enough that we could ignore them? Or we could arbitrarily decide that a lossy page should be counted as MaxHeapTuplesPerPage, or a bit less arbitrarily, count it as the relation's average number of tuples per page. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers