On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane 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.
> >
> > A
On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane 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
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane 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 l
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13698.1487283...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> +1
> I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
> downside to this:
On 13/08/17 16:19, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane 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.
But explosions are fun!
< duc
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane 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 Sep
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20559.1501703...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>
>> That one was already informally reviewed by two people, so I don't
>> think it needs an
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20559.1501703...@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> That one was already informally reviewed by two people, so I don't
> think it needs another look.
I'd vote for put
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
