| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | pgsql: Doc: Remove obsolete CREATE AGGREGATE note. |
| Date: | 2020-07-29 00:00:13 |
| Message-ID: | E1k0ZW1-0005Lw-Cm@gemulon.postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Doc: Remove obsolete CREATE AGGREGATE note.
The planner is in fact willing to use hash aggregation when work_mem is
not set high enough for everything to fit in memory. This has been the
case since commit 1f39bce0, which added disk-based hash aggregation.
There are a few remaining cases in which hash aggregation is avoided as
a matter of policy when the planner surmises that spilling will be
necessary. For example, callers of choose_hashed_setop() still
conservatively avoid hash aggregation when spilling is anticipated.
That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to mention hash aggregation
in this context.
Backpatch: 13-, where disk-based hash aggregation was introduced.
Branch
------
REL_13_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e362f469c50f6e671285640cc2087345ab55a9b2
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_aggregate.sgml | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-29 00:15:30 | pgsql: Correct obsolete UNION hash aggs comment. |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-07-28 23:43:37 | pgsql: Make EXPLAIN ANALYZE of HashAgg more similar to Hash Join |