On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Personally I think Alvaro's position is unduly conservative: to the > extent > >> that plans change it'd likely be for the better. But I'm not excited > >> enough to fight hard about it. > > > I don't really care enough. We have received some complaints about > > keeping plans stable, but maybe it's okay. > > The other side of the coin is that there haven't been so many requests for > changing this; more than just this one, but not a groundswell. So 9.5 > only seems like a good compromise unless we get more votes for back-patch. > > I reviewed the patch and concluded that it would be better to split > compute_minimal_stats into two functions instead of sprinkling it so > liberally with if's. So I did that and pushed it. > Thanks, I was not really happy about all the checks because some of them were rather implicit (e.g. num_mcv being 0 due to track being NULL, etc.). Adding this as a separate function makes me feel safer. -- Alex
