On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Similar here, there doesn't seem to be that much urgency. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers