From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly |
Date: | 2017-08-13 04:19:54 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=2=teNMuQFN78ErOWZni5=SuHSDTqMWbNUwDggX8fL2=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I have some patches sitting around in my workspace that I think are
> non-controversial, and so I was considering just pushing them once
> the tree opens for v11 development. If anyone thinks they need
> further review, I'll put them into the September commitfest, but
> otherwise we might as well skip the overhead. These are:
>
> 1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13698.1487283211@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> That discussion sort of trailed off, but there wasn't really anyone
> saying not to commit it, and no new ideas have surfaced.
+1
I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
case when we can see it coming.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-08-13 07:17:10 | Re: Pluggable storage |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-13 03:37:27 | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |