On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stepping back a bit, my current view of this area is: disable_cost is > highly imperfect both as an idea and as implemented in PostgreSQL. > Although I'm discovering that the current implementation gets more > things right than I had realized, it also sometimes gets things wrong. > The original poster gave an example of that, and there are others. > Furthermore, the current implementation has some weird > inconsistencies. Therefore, I would like something better.
FWIW I always found those weird inconsistencies to be annoying at best, and confusing at worst. I speak as somebody that uses disable_cost a lot. I certainly wouldn't ask anybody to make it a priority for that reason alone -- it's not *that* bad. I've given my opinion on this because it's already under discussion. -- Peter Geoghegan
