"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> * We've said here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html that we >> "Don't want hints". If that's what we really think, then this patch must >> surely be rejected because its a hint... That isn't my view. I *now* >> think we do need hints of various kinds.
> cursors_tuple_fraction or OPTIMIZE FOR xxx ROWS isn't the kind of hints > we've said "no" to in the past. More to the point, I think what we've generally meant by "hints" is nonstandard decoration on individual SQL commands (either explicit syntax or one of those interpret-some-comments kluges). Simon is reading the policy in such a way that it would forbid all the planner cost parameters, which is surely not what is intended. I see this as being basically another cost parameter, and as such I don't think it needs more documentation than any of those have. (Now admittedly you could argue that they could all use a ton more documentation than they now have, but it's not reasonable to insist on just this one meeting a different standard.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches