Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:11:19 +0100
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Hubert Zhang <hzhang@pivotal.io>,
	hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins
Message-ID: <20191125181119.ieiu2ndh2kget4v3@development>
References: <20190711154011.lmkp7jyd3e2zfcnx@development>
 <20190903163633.GA16230@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAAKRu_b6+jC93WP+pWxqK5KAZJC5Rmxm8uquKtEf-KQ++1Li6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190910134751.x64idfqj6qgt37om@development>
 <20191125083335.GQ99720@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191125083335.GQ99720@paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:33:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:47:51PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> My feeling is that we should get the BNLJ committed first, and then maybe
>> use some of those additional strategies as fallbacks (depending on which
>> issues are still unsolved by the BNLJ).
>
>The glacier is melting more.  Tomas, what's your status here?  The
>patch has been waiting on author for two months now.  If you are not
>planning to work more on this one, then it should be marked as
>returned with feedback?

I'm not planning to do any any immediate work on this, so I agree with
marking it as RWF. I think Melanie is working on the BNL patch, which
seems like the right solution.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services