Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for new SET variables for optimizer costs

At 16:29 5/02/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>SET variable name    Internal variable    Proposed default
>
>RANDOM_PAGE_COST    random_page_cost    4.0
>
>Cost of fetching a disk block nonsequentially (as a multiple of the cost
>of a sequential block fetch).
>
>CPU_TUPLE_COST        cpu_tuple_cost        0.01
>
>
>CPU_INDEX_TUPLE_COST    cpu_index_tuple_cost    0.001
>
>CPU_OPERATOR_COST    cpu_operator_cost    0.0025
>
>ENABLE_SEQSCAN        enable_seqscan        ON
>
>ENABLE_INDEXSCAN    enable_indexscan    ON
>
>ENABLE_TIDSCAN        enable_tidscan        ON
>
>ENABLE_SORT        enable_sort        ON
>
>ENABLE_NESTLOOP        enable_nestloop        ON
>
>ENABLE_MERGEJOIN    enable_mergejoin    ON
>
>ENABLE_HASHJOIN        enable_hashjoin        ON
>

Any chance of prefixing the 'set' variable names with 'PG_' or 'PG_OPT_' or
something similar? Or doing something else to differentiate them from
user-declared SQL variables? I have no idea if user-declared SQL variables
are an SQL92 thing, but these variables are 'system' things, and some kind
of differentiation seems like a good idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422            |                 _________  \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430            |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/