* Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postgres@cybertec.at) wrote:
> but, it seems the problem we are looking is not sufficiently fixed yet.
> in our case we shaved off some 18% of planning time or so - looking at the other top 2 functions i got the feeling
thatmore can be done to reduce this. i guess we have to attack this as well.
An 18% increase is certainly nice, provided it doesn't slow down or
break other things.. I'm looking through the patch now actually and
I'm not really happy with the naming, comments, or some of the code
flow, but I think the concept looks reasonable.
Thanks,
Stephen