From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Date: | 2020-07-18 18:30:43 |
Message-ID: | 4118680.1595097043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 18:38 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> There is also the separate question of what to do about the
>> hashagg_avoid_disk_plan GUC (this is a separate open item that
>> requires a separate resolution). Tom leans slightly towards removing
>> it now. Is your position about the same as before?
> Yes, I think we should have that GUC (hashagg_avoid_disk_plan) for at
> least one release.
You'e being optimistic about it being possible to remove a GUC once
we ship it. That seems to be a hard sell most of the time.
I'm honestly a bit baffled about the level of fear being expressed
around this feature. We have *frequently* made changes that would
change query plans, perhaps not 100.00% for the better, and never
before have we had this kind of bikeshedding about whether it was
necessary to be able to turn it off. I think the entire discussion
is way out ahead of any field evidence that we need such a knob.
In the absence of evidence, our default position ought to be to
keep it simple, not to accumulate backwards-compatibility kluges.
(The only reason I'm in favor of heap_mem[_multiplier] is that it
seems like it might be possible to use it to get *better* plans
than before. I do not see it as a backwards-compatibility knob.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-18 21:17:37 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-07-18 18:16:26 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-18 18:59:18 | Re: Busted includes somewhere near worker_internal.h |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-18 18:19:17 | Re: CID 1428952 (#1 of 1): Out-of-bounds access (OVERRUN) (src/backend/commands/async.c) |