by tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Tom Lane)
May 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM
"Heikki Lin****angas" <heikki@[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 do***entation than any of those have.
(Now admittedly you could argue that they could all use a ton more
do***entation 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 (pgsql-patches@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
