On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:35:07PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Monday 04 August 2008 03:50:40 daveg wrote: > > That's great for you, I am talking in the scope of a general solution. (Note > I'd also bet that even given the same hardware, different production loads > can produce different relative mappings of cost vs. performance, but > whatever)
Even on different hardware it would still likely warn of mistakes like products due to missing join conditions etc. > > > I still think it is worth revisiting what problems people are trying to > > > solve, and see if there are better tools they can be given to solve them. > > > Barring that, I suppose a crude solution is better than nothing, though > > > I fear people might point at the crude solution as a good enough solution > > > to justify not working on better solutions. > > > > Alerting developers and QA to potentially costly queries would help solve > > some of the probems we are trying to solve. Better tools are welcome, an > > argument that the good is the enemy of the best so we should be content > > with nothing is not. > > And you'll note, I specifically said that a crude tool is better than > nothing. I released somewhat after I sent the above that it might have sounded a bit snippy. I hope I have not offended. > But your completely ignoring that a crude tool can often end-up as a foot-gun > once relased into the wild. I'm suggesting a warning, or even just a notice into the logs, I don't see the footgun. What am I missing? Regards -dg -- David Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers