Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
/messages/by-id/20559.1501703105@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 putting this fix into v10, but maybe that's just me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
/messages/by-id/20559.1501703105@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 putting this fix into v10, but maybe that's just me.

... OK by me, any objections?

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

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 September commitfest, but
otherwise we might as well skip the overhead. These are:

1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
/messages/by-id/13698.1487283211@sss.pgh.pa.us

That discussion sort of trailed off, but there wasn't really anyone
saying not to commit it, and no new ideas have surfaced.

+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.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 13/08/17 16:19, Thomas Munro wrote:

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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!
< ducks, and runs away VERY rapidly>

More seriously:
Up to now I'd been avoiding hash indexes, so great news!

Cheers,
Gavin

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
/messages/by-id/13698.1487283211@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

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 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.

I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 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.

I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.

Similar here, there doesn't seem to be that much urgency.

- Andres

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 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.

I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.

+1 for waiting until v11 with it.

We have plenty enough other things that could end up needing a quick
post-release-release, and those are things that have received at least
somem testing...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/&gt;
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/&gt;