Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9C9I-00020n-Qn for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:06:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9C9I-0003IN-DY for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:06:32 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9C9H-0003HO-9K for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:06:31 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9C9E-0005jT-DS for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:06:30 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4CF6QIV019854; Fri, 12 May 2017 11:06:26 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Tomas Vondra , Simon Riggs , Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development , Dean Rasheed Subject: Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS In-reply-to: <20170512144322.35ntjwk45h2gyjm2@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20170512144322.35ntjwk45h2gyjm2@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 12 May 2017 11:43:22 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19852.1494601586.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:06:26 -0400 Message-ID: <19853.1494601586@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm prepared to create a fix for that, but it'd be easier to commit the >> current patch first, to avoid merge conflicts. > It seems we're mostly in agreement regarding the parts I was touching. > Do you want to push your version of the patch? It's still almost all your work, so I figured you should push it. >> Hm. OK, but then that example is pretty misleading, because it leads >> the reader to suppose that the planner can tell the difference between >> the selectivities of the two queries. Maybe what's lacking is an >> explanation of how you'd use this statistics type. > I think we should remove the complex example from that page, and instead > refer the reader to chapters 14 and 69. Seems reasonable. If we did add enough material there to be a standalone description, it would be duplicative probably. However, that does put the onus on the other chapters to offer a complete definition, rather than leaving details to the man page as we do in many other cases. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers