Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()
Date: 2018-03-07 02:56:38
Message-ID: 4be2304a-b1d0-73bc-96a4-946511035533@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/2/18 05:01, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>> David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Does this look right to you?
>>
>> Yes, this is what I meant. The patch applies cleanly and the code compiles
>> well.
>>
>>> If so, can you sign up as a reviewer and mark it Ready for Committer?
>>
>> Done.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Actually I think it'd be nice if the "parallel_hash" argument was mentioned in
>> the header comment of initial_cost_hashjoin() function, but not sure this is
>> worth returning the patch to the author.
>
> Done.

committed

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-03-07 03:04:03 Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-03-07 02:49:31 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11