Hi, On 2020-07-03 10:08:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well, the bottom line is that we are designing features during beta. > People are supposed to be testing PG 13 behavior during beta, including > optimizer behavior.
I think it makes no too much sense to plan invent something like hash_mem for v13, it's clearly too much work. That's a seperate discussion from having something like it for v14. > We don't even have a user report yet of a > regression compared to PG 12, or one that can't be fixed by increasing > work_mem. I posted a repro, and no you can't fix it by increasing work_mem without increasing memory usage in the whole query / all queries. > If we add a new behavior to PG 13, we then have the pre-PG 13 behavior, > the pre-patch behavior, and the post-patch behavior. How are people > supposed to test all of that? I don't really buy this as a problem. It's not like the pre-13 behaviour would be all new. It's how PG has behaved approximately forever. My conclusion about this topic is that I think we'll be doing our users a disservice by not providing an escape hatch, but that I also don't have the energy / time to fight for it further. This is a long thread already, and I sense little movement towards a conclusion. Greetings, Andres Freund
