Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Is there any reason to tie this into page costs? I'd be more inclined
> to just make it a hard limit on the number of pages. I think that
> would be more predictable and less prone to surprising (bad) behavior.
Agreed, a simple limit of N pages fetched seems appropriate.
> And to be honest I would be inclined to make it quite a small number.
> Perhaps 5 or 10. Is there a good argument for going any higher?
Sure: people are not complaining until it gets into the thousands.
And you have to remember that the entire mechanism exists only
because of user complaints about inaccurate estimates. We shouldn't
be too eager to resurrect that problem.
I'd be happy with a limit of 100 pages.
regards, tom lane