Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11283108608F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:28:52 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1RfhNz-0002IR-9I
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:28:51 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pBS0SbvW017734;
	Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:28:37 -0500 (EST)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ondrej_Ivani=C4=8D?= <ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Subquery flattening causing sequential scan 
In-reply-to: 
 <CAM6mieL3XY25gGQacD7EYnWg9z-P2=kAEN_15xAQvic=LQTa7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0E417F76-FE21-4FB5-8132-0C485778A041@gmail.com>
	<12106.1325009566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAM6mieL3XY25gGQacD7EYnWg9z-P2=kAEN_15xAQvic=LQTa7w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?Q?Ondrej_Ivani=C4=8D?= <ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:21:00 +1100"
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:28:37 -0500
Message-ID: <17733.1325032117@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---)
X-Archive-Number: 201112/188
X-Sequence-Number: 45987

=?UTF-8?Q?Ondrej_Ivani=C4=8D?= <ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com> writes:
> The question is why the parameter f is not exposed as a GUC?

What would that accomplish that default_statistics_target doesn't?
(Other than being much harder to explain...)

			regards, tom lane