Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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: 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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
