Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 11:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I realized this proposal has been withdrawn, but the fact the proposal
> > even illicited comments exploring it requires me to comment.
> > 
> > Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
> > no-column-list INSERTs for a small performance boost?  If there was no
> > other way to get the performance boost, and the features was rarely
> > used, we might consider such a change, but neither is true in this case.
> > 
> > My point is that this proposal is so far away from our acceptable
> > criteria that I am worried about how people are analyzing proposals.
> When suggested, it wasn't clear to me that it did break anything,
> otherwise I wouldn't have written it up. I read Alvaro's post and

You mentioned in your own original posting that it broke SELECT * and

> wondered why that proposal had been overlooked, so I started a separate
> thread to ensure that the idea was discussed. That seems very similar to
> many of your own posts.

True, but usually I don't see the breakage.  What concerned me is you
saw some of the breakage, but still went ahead with the proposal.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to