| From: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
| Date: | 2020-12-01 00:08:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAAaqYe8bEA_dqGm0XB=95VM7Fab+4xDvKdYA2YP65KsBQi6GAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:39 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I've pushed the 0001 part, i.e. the main fix. Not sure about the other
> parts (comments and moving the code back to postgres_fdw) yet.
I noticed the CF entry [1] got moved to the next CF; I'm thinking this
entry should be marked as committed since the fix for the initial bug
reported on this thread has been pushed. We have the parallel safety
issue outstanding, but there's a separate thread and patch for that,
so I'll make a new CF entry for that.
I can mark it as committed, but I'm not sure how to "undo" (or if
that's desirable) the move to the next CF.
Thoughts?
James
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-12-01 00:20:56 | Re: error_severity of brin work item |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-12-01 00:03:45 | Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs |