| From: | Tatsuro Yamada <yamatattsu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add enable_groupagg GUC parameter to control GroupAggregate usage |
| Date: | 2025-06-11 08:36:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAOKkKFvgjAwtUFKh3baZ7BcQ5u+wS_DO+2n7dh0un+19v_VOzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Ashtosh and hackers,
> >Some of those instances are for plan stability, all of which need not be
> replicated. But some of them explicitly test sort based grouping. For rest
> of them hash based plan seems to be the best one, so explicit
> enable_groupagg = false is not needed. We will need some test to test the
> switch though.
>
> Thanks for your advice. I'll create a regression test and send a new patch
> to -hackers in my next email.
>
I created a regression test to check the enable_groupagg parameter in
the new patch.
To ensure plan stability, I disabled parallel query by setting the
max_parallel_*
parameters to 0.
Any feedback is welcome.
Please see the attached file.
Thanks,
Tatsuro Yamada
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Add-new-GUC-parameter-enable_groupagg-WIP-r2.patch | application/octet-stream | 11.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-06-11 08:46:02 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-11 08:34:44 | Re: Improve tab completion for various SET/RESET forms |