From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:23:58 -0700
Message-ID: <129c8f1739957589584d9525e1d8782eae3f412f.camel@j-davis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoY4-zSMFf8XbpO6uRsMX4vNPPLXvtajAZpG3f9eoEyjdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9d9d1e1252a52ea1bad84ea40dbebfd54e672a0f.camel@j-davis.com>
<20200407223900.GT2228@telsasoft.com>
<20200409114855.h4hh7e2wt77p56sv@development>
<CA+Tgmoa74xaiZTdLeQ_aiPE7-eJb_Pdkc_K_hv95PdaDjZnxKQ@mail.gmail.com>
<6292f5a766198d5745eb8cc17ac736366056671d.camel@j-davis.com>
<CAAKRu_aisiENMsPM2gC4oUY1hHG3yrCwY-fXUg22C6_MJUwQdA@mail.gmail.com>
<20200610021544.GA14879@telsasoft.com>
<8bff2e4e8020c3caa16b61a46918d21b573eaf78.camel@j-davis.com>
<CA+TgmoagMLfruY4y_40oKLmFFdBRVSGraZsTa5ss9wH546EYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
<ee1a7be071349b93c01ffb9ef4cf3a6830d9e780.camel@j-davis.com>
<CA+TgmoY4-zSMFf8XbpO6uRsMX4vNPPLXvtajAZpG3f9eoEyjdA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 15:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The weirdness is the problem here, at least for me. Generally, I
> don't
> like GUCs of the form give_me_the_old_strange_behavior=true
I agree with all of that in general.
> I don't think it necessarily implies that either. I do however have
> some concerns about people using the GUC as a crutch.
Another way of looking at it is that the weird behavior is already
there in v12, so there are already users relying on this weird behavior
as a crutch for some other planner mistake. The question is whether we
want to:
(a) take the weird behavior away now as a consequence of implementing
disk-based HashAgg; or
(b) support the weird behavior forever; or
(c) introduce a GUC now to help transition away from the weird behavior
The danger with (c) is that it gives users more time to become more
reliant on the weird behavior; and worse, a GUC could be seen as an
endorsement of the weird behavior rather than a path to eliminating it.
So we could intend to do (c) and end up with (b). We can mitigate this
with documentation warnings, perhaps.
> I am slightly
> worried that this is going to have hard-to-fix problems and that
> we'll
> be stuck with the GUC for that reason.
Without the GUC, it's basically a normal cost-based decision, with all
of the good and bad that comes with that.
> Now if that is the case, is
> removing the GUC any better? Maybe not. These decisions are hard, and
> I am not trying to pretend like I have all the answers.
I agree that there is no easy answer.
My philosophy here is: if a user does experience a plan regression due
to my change, would it be reasonable to tell them that we don't have
any escape hatch or transition period at all? That would be a tough
sell for such a common plan type.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
In-Reply-To: <129c8f1739957589584d9525e1d8782eae3f412f.camel@j-davis.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox