Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-13 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-13 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-13 Thread Gavin Flower
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-12 Thread Thomas Munro
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-11 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-11 Thread Robert Haas
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

[HACKERS] Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

2017-08-11 Thread Tom Lane
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