On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > What I'm wondering is whether to back-patch this or leave well enough > alone. The risk of back-patching is that it might destabilize plan > choices that people like. (In Tomas' original example, the underestimate > of the table size leads it to choose a plan that is in fact better.) > The risk of not back-patching is that the error could lead to > out-of-memory failures because the hash aggregation uses more memory > than the planner expected. FWIW I recently investigated an out-of-memory issue in hash aggregation. That case was because of use of a large temp table which was not manually analysed and thus lead to a bad plan selection. But out of memory errors are very confusing to the users and I have seen them unnecessarily tinkering their memory settings to circumvent that issue. So +1 to fix the bug in back branches, even though I understand there could be some casualties on the border. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee
