Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold

Hi,

On Saturday 11 July 2009 18:23:59 Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > The only question I have is, whether random_r or similar is available on
> > enough platforms... Has anybody an idea about this?
> > On most unixoid system one could just wrap erand48() if random_r is not
> > available.
> > Windows?
>
> random_r() isn't in the Single Unix Spec AFAICS, and I also don't find
> it on HPUX 10.20, so I'd vote against depending on it.  What I do see
> in SUS is initstate() and setstate() which could be used to control
> the random() function:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/initstate.html
Using setstate() has a bit too many possible implications for my taste - 
especially as there is no way to portably get/save the current random state.

(Running a known query to reset randoms seed or so)

> It would also work to leave random() for use by the core code and have
> GEQO depend on something from the drand48() family:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/drand48.html
> Probably drand48() is less random than random(), but for the limited
> purposes of GEQO I doubt we care very much.
Yes.

> So far as I can find in a quick google search, neither of these families
> of functions exist on Windows :-(.  So I think maybe the best approach
> is the second one --- we could implement a port/ module that provides a
> version of whichever drand48 function we need.
Okay.
It would be possible to implement random_r the same way if we are going to 
write something for windows anyway - Is it possible that it might be usefull 
somewhere else?

> On reflection I think the best user API is probably a "geqo_seed" GUC in
> the range 0 to 1, and have GEQO always reset its seed to that value at
> start of a planning cycle.  This ensures plan stability, and if you need
> to experiment with alternative plans you can change to different seed
> values.  The "no reset" behavior doesn't seem to have much real-world
> usefulness, because even if you chance to get a good plan, you have no
> way to reproduce it...
That was my thinking as well. 

Should geqo_seed be documented from start or not?

Andres