Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly
Date: 2017-08-13 21:24:59
Message-ID: 23150.1502659499@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-13 21:35:43 Re: [HACKERS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-08-13 21:22:22 Re: [HACKERS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken