| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] I've got it, now should I commit it? |
| Date: | 1999-05-18 21:46:10 |
| Message-ID: | 21476.927063970@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>> Basically, with the new optimizer, this may be a bug fix because of the
>> more frequent hashjoins. That has always been my smokescreen to add the
>> feature.
> Tom...make you a deal. If you are confident enough with the code that
> when v6.5 goes out in ~13days, it won't generate more bug reports then its
> fixing...go for it. :)
OK, you're on --- I feel pretty good about this code, although I'm never
prepared to guarantee zero bugs ;-). If there are any, we can hope
they'll show up before the end of beta.
A note for anyone testing the new code: the hashtable size (which is now
a target estimate, not a hard limit) is now driven by the postmaster's
-S switch, not the -B switch. -S seems more reasonable since the table
is private memory in a backend, not shared memory.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-18 22:14:32 | Re: [HACKERS] I've got it, now should I commit it? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 1999-05-18 21:36:08 | Q: Features of 6.5 |