> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> > Is there any reason to mess with this?
>
> No. The planner doesn't actually bother to figure the
> cost of triggers
> anyway, since presumably every correct plan will fire the
> same set of
> triggers. So even if you had a more accurate cost estimate
> than that
> one, it wouldn't get used for anything.
>
Excellent, that's good with me.
> Now, for ordinary non-trigger functions, it might be worth
> paying
> some attention to the cost estimate. "1" is
> intended to denote the
> cost of a reasonably simple C function, so PL functions
> should pretty
> much always have costs that are large multiples of that.
> 100 is a
> reasonable default, but if you know better you can put
> something else.
>
Cool, I'll leave it alone for now then, interesting stuff, thanks Tom.