On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: >> Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: >> >> > Alright. I'm attaching the latest version of this patch split in two >> > parts: the first one is NULLs-related bugfix and the second is the >> > "improvement" part, which applies on top of the first one. >> >> So is this null-related bugfix supposed to be backpatched? (I assume >> it's not because it's very likely to change existing plans). > > For the good, because cardinality estimations will be more accurate in these > cases, so yes I would expect it to be back-patchable.
-1. I think the cost of changing existing query plans in back branches is too high. The people who get a better plan never thank us, but the people who (by bad luck) get a worse plan always complain. -- 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
