On 05/01/2017 10:17 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> So no more planner-affecting GUCs, please, particularly if we expect >>> regular users to use them. >> +1 >> >> I still see users wanting to use the enable_foo settings in production. >> >> Having had years of telling users that CTEs are an optimization fence it >> doesn't seem at all nice for us to turn around and change our mind about >> that. I have relied on it in the past and I'm sure I'm very far from >> alone in that. > You are certainly not alone, but I believe that in this you're missing > the vast majority (we hope) of PostgreSQL users. These are the users > who have yet to adopt PostgreSQL, and have the quite reasonable > expectation that ordinary-looking grammar *isn't* an optimization > fence. >
I am not in favor of seriously inconveniencing a significant number of our existing users for the sake of a bunch of people who don't now and might never in the future use Postgres. I think the bar for silent behaviour changes needs to be a bit higher than this one is. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
