On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. > > Anybody else want to vote that way? For myself it's getting a bit late > in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing > to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for > that.
I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa; that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker than I'd like. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
