Re: Out of date comment in cached_plan_cost

2017-12-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> I don't see much difference in the old and new wording. The word >> "generally" confuses more than clarifying the cases

Re: Out of date comment in cached_plan_cost

2017-12-11 Thread David Rowley
On 11 December 2017 at 21:39, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I don't see much difference in the old and new wording. The word > "generally" confuses more than clarifying the cases when the planning > cost curves do not change with the number of relations i.e. >

Re: Out of date comment in cached_plan_cost

2017-12-11 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:02 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >>> The attached is my attempt at putting this

Re: Out of date comment in cached_plan_cost

2017-12-10 Thread David Rowley
On 9 December 2017 at 06:05, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, David Rowley > wrote: >> The attached is my attempt at putting this right. > > I don't feel entirely right about the way this seems to treat > inheritance and

Out of date comment in cached_plan_cost

2017-12-07 Thread David Rowley
Hi, I just noticed a comment which has been made a little outdated by the partition-wise join code from commit f49842d1. The comment claims that inheritance children don't add to the effort required in join planning, while that still may be true, we should probably mention that partitioned tables