Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> Regardless, setting vuntil to some magic value that really means "it's
> actually NULL", which is what you'd need to do in order to get rid of
> that explicit check for null, doesn't strike me as a good idea. When a
> value is null, we shouldn't be looking at the data at all.
Even aside from that, the proposed change seems like a bad idea because
it introduces an unnecessary call of GetCurrentTimestamp() in the common
case where there's no valuntil limit. On some platforms that call is
pretty slow.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
