On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:14:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I'd rather have the ugly solution sooner rather than the elegant one > > later (if ever). > > The trouble with that is that we couldn't ever get rid of it, and we'd > be stuck with backward-compatibility concerns with the first (over > simplified) design. It's important to get it right the first time, > at least for stuff that you know perfectly well is going to end up > embedded in application code. We've depricated things before, I'm sure we'll do it again. Yes, it's a pain, but it's better than not having anything release after release. And having a formal hint language would at least allow us to eventually clean up some of these oddball cases, like the OFFSET 0 hack. I'm also not convinced that even supplimental statistics will be enough to ensure the planner always does the right thing, so query-level hints may have to stay (though it'd be great if that wasn't the case). -- Jim Nasby jim@xxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
