Hi, On 2019-10-03 12:12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > In the meantime, I still think we should commit what I proposed in the > > other thread (<974.1569356...@sss.pgh.pa.us>), or something close to it. > > Andres' proposal would perhaps be an improvement on that, but I don't > > think it'll be ready anytime soon; and for sure we wouldn't risk > > back-patching it, while I think we could back-patch what I suggested. > > In any case, that patch is small enough that dropping it would be no big > > loss if a better solution comes along. > > Not having heard any objections, I'll proceed with that. Andres is > welcome to work on replacing it with his more-complicated idea...
Yea, what I'm proposing is clearly not backpatchable. So +1 > Maybe this point is an argument for pushing forward with Andres' > approach, but I'm still dubious about the overall cost/benefit ratio > of that concept. I think if it were just for MAX_CONVERSION_GROWTH, I'd be inclined to agree. But I think it has other advantages, so I'm mildy positivie that it'll be an overall win... Greetings, Andres Freund
