On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Personally I'd think that we should retain it for objects; Peter's >> main argument against that was that the comment would be too complicated, >> but that seems a bit silly from here. > > I just don't see any point to it. My argument against the complexity > of explaining why the optimization is only used with objects is based > on the costs and the benefits. I think the benefits are very close to > nil.
That seems pessimistic to me; I'm with Tom. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
