On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:42 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:27 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm dubious that the committed > >> patch was ready. > > > While inventing this GUC, I was thinking more about avoiding > > regressions rather than about unleashing the full power of this > > optimization. But now I see that that wasn't good enough. And it was > > definitely hasty to commit to this shape. I apologize for this. > > > Tom, I think you are way more experienced in this codebase than me. > > And, probably more importantly, more experienced in making decisions > > for planner development. If you see some way forward to polish this > > post-commit, Andrei and I are ready to work hard on this with you. If > > you don't see (or don't think that's good), let's revert this. > > It wasn't ready to commit, and I think trying to fix it up post > feature freeze isn't appropriate project management. Let's revert > it and work on it more in the v18 time frame.
Ok, let's do this. I'd like to hear from you some directions for further development of this patch if possible. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
