Tom, > Wasn't this exact proposal discussed and rejected awhile back?
We rejected Greenplum's much more invasive resource manager, because it created a large performance penalty on small queries whether or not it was turned on. However, I don't remember any rejection of an idea as simple as a cost limit rejection. This would, IMHO, be very useful for production instances of PostgreSQL. The penalty for mis-rejection of a poorly costed query is much lower than the penalty for having a bad query eat all your CPU. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
