On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > What it seems like we should do, if we want to back-patch this, is apply > it without the add_path_precheck changes. Then as an independent > HEAD-only patch, change add_path_precheck so that it's behaving as > designed. It looks to me like that will save some planning time in any > case --- changing add_path_precheck to disregard startup cost when > appropriate seems to let it reject a lot more paths than it used to.
I'd just like to mention that I really appreciate the time and thought that went into keeping the back-patched portion of this fix narrow. Thanks! -- 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
