Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm disinclined to monkey with the way this works without someone
>> presenting hard evidence that it creates enough of a performance problem
>> to be worth spending a significant amount of time changing it. Up to
>> now I don't think I've ever noticed plancat.c being a large fraction
>> of planner runtime, though of course that might depend on the test case.
> If we're going to have to change this at some point (and I bet we
> are), I'd rather do it before people jam even more stuff into the
> current system rather than wait until it gets totally out of hand.
While I'm prepared to believe that this *could* be a problem, I repeat
that you've offered no hard evidence that it actually *is* a problem,
or might become one in the future. We could easily expend a significant
amount of effort here for no real return.
regards, tom lane