| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Date: | 2020-07-10 21:30:41 |
| Message-ID: | 2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> It now seems likely that the hash_mem/hash_mem_multiplier proposal has
> the support it needs to get into Postgres 13. Assuming that the
> proposal doesn't lose momentum, then it's about time to return to the
> original question you posed at the start of the thread:
> What should we do with the hashagg_avoid_disk_plan GUC (formerly known
> as the enable_hashagg_disk GUC), if anything?
> I myself think that there is a case to be made for removing it
> entirely.
+0.5 or so for removing it. It seems too confusing and dubiously
useful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-07-10 21:50:13 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-10 21:28:15 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-10 21:36:28 | Re: "tuple concurrently updated" in pg_restore --jobs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-10 21:28:15 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |