Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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