David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 03:49, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Likewise, it might be >> better to fix DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST beforehand, to detangle what >> the effects of that are.
> I chatted to Andres and Thomas about this last week and their view > made me think it might not be quite as clear-cut as "just bump it up a > bunch because it's ridiculously low" that I had in mind. They > mentioned about file_fdw and another one that appears to work on > mmapped segments, which I don't recall if any names were mentioned. Um ... DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST is postgres_fdw-specific, so I do not see what connection some other FDW would have to it. regards, tom lane