Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de
Cc: Taylor Vesely <tvesely(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Adam Lee <ali(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Melanie Plageman <mplageman(at)pivotal(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation
Date: 2019-12-05 20:55:51
Message-ID: 9723131d247b919f94699152647fa87ee0bc02c2.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> And it's not clear to me why we should remove part of the comment
> before
> TupleHashTableHash.

It looks like 5dfc1981 changed the signature of TupleHashTableHash
without updating the comment, so it doesn't really make sense any more.
I just updated the comment as a part of my patch, but it's not related.

Andres, comments? Maybe we can just commit a fix for that comment and
take it out of my patch.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-12-05 21:03:44 Re: Append with naive multiplexing of FDWs
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-12-05 20:19:50 Re: Append with naive multiplexing of FDWs