Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it should be dropped entirely.  The argument against was that
> >> it complicated the code in a non-performance-critical path, and that
> >> argument isn't going to be different next time.
> > I only kept it for 8.4 because I was worried it might be needed for HOT
> > performance.
> No such argument has been made in my hearing, and I can't imagine why
> either of the functions touched by the patch would be more
> performance-critical for HOT than they are today.

OK, removed from 8.4 queue.

  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