Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah, that makes sense. In fact, if we only apply the adjustment when
> reldistinct > 0 and rel->rows < rel->tuples, and rewrite the first
> argument to pow() as (rel->tuples - rel->rows) / rel->tuples, then it
> is guaranteed to be non-negative. If rel->rows >= rel->tuples (not
> sure if it can be greater), then we just want the original
> reldistinct.
Works for me.
regards, tom lane