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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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