From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 12:50:01 -0500
Message-ID: <20200505175001.GA28974@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200505171809.GF21185@momjian.us>
References: <20200505031600.GB21752@momjian.us>
<20200505164503.GY28974@telsasoft.com>
<20200505171809.GF21185@momjian.us>
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 01:18:09PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > |Release date: 2020-05-03
> > => Should say 2020-XX-XX, before someone like me goes and installs it everywhere in sight.
>
> Agreed!
>
> > |These triggers cannot change the destination partition.
> > => Maybe say "cannot change which partition is the destination"
Looks like you copied my quote mark :(
> > | Allow hash aggregation to use disk storage for large aggregation result sets (Jeff Davis)
> > | Previously, hash aggregation was not used if it was expected to use more than work_mem memory. This is controlled by enable_hashagg_disk.
> > => enable_hashagg_disk doesn't behave like other enable_* parameters.
> > As I understand, disabling it only "opportunisitically" avoids plans which are
> > *expected* to overflow work_mem. I think we should specifically say that, and
> > maybe suggest recalibrating work_mem.
>
> I went with "avoided":
>
> Previously, hash aggregation was avoided if it was expected to use more
> than work_mem memory. This is controlled by enable_hashagg_disk.
I think we should expand on this:
|Previously, hash aggregation was avoided if it was expected to use more than
|work_mem memory, but it wasn't enforced, and hashing could still exceed
|work_mem. To get back the old behavior, increasing work_mem.
|
|The parameter enable_hashagg_disk controls whether a plan which is *expected*
|to spill to disk will be considered. During execution, an aggregate node which
|exceeding work_mem will spill to disk regardless of this parameter.
I wrote something similar here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200407223900.GT2228%40telsasoft.com> > | This is controlled by GUC wal_skip_threshold.
> > I think you should say that's a size threshold which determines which strategy
> > to use (WAL or fsync).
>
> I went with:
> The WAL write amount where this happens is controlled by wal_skip_threshold.
>
> They can use the doc link if they want more detail.
I guess I would say "relations larger than wal_skip_threshold will be fsynced
rather than copied to WAL"
--
Justin
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pryzby@telsasoft.com, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
In-Reply-To: <20200505175001.GA28974@telsasoft.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