Why would you care?  Seems like forcing that to not happen is actively
making it stupider.
To better compare the algorithms and possibly not for final solution at
the beginning. If we would implement 10 algorithms and want to pickup
just 3 best ones to be used and throw 7 away.

Later on, we can try to run just the one "very fast" algorithm and
depending on the cost decide whether we would run remaining 9 or
less or even none.

Yes, the example in dummy.c is really stupider, but it could be done
in more clever way.

Well, I can see one likely problem: list_copy is a shallow copy and
thus doesn't ensure that the second set of functions sees the same input
data structures as the first.  I know that geqo has to go through some
special pushups to perform multiple invocations of the base planner,
and I suspect you need that here too.  Look at geqo_eval().

I'll explore that.



Julius Stroffek

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to