pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:30:41 -0400
Message-ID: <2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WzmG8PmY3Qs2L=OxdFJ3ZJvOiks7NB1VNe0dVSiP2L0Okw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <85F9F4F0-918A-457F-BC9E-F2AC2EFC1F86@anarazel.de>
	<20200625225853.GA11137@alvherre.pgsql>
	<20200708140037.GI3125@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<99b047386525b87df1e611335c2e57a6cdef346b.camel@j-davis.com>
	<20200709140330.GO3125@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAH2-WzmB04dxgRgjDGvDbugEFfHxMi2pyuJqsYr30x1RAEqSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200709225840.GE12375@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAH2-WzmbycnZnxFTYnwkSkCPTVQbRoLiuEvo8gkZCKiQTL8GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200710000842.GF12375@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAH2-Wz=9f-gxPmqL9Lak0xddPmH0bgfAEioK+2BwTkuzyrtZEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200710141714.GI12375@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAH2-Wzkd7cWK-mMPMb63JXxj2QFMan6hw+cQjdJKvdtCOpR7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<2107841.1594403217@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<29847045df67838cd72dc2dfe830a11642fb7153.camel@j-davis.com>
	<CAH2-WzmG8PmY3Qs2L=OxdFJ3ZJvOiks7NB1VNe0dVSiP2L0Okw@mail.gmail.com>

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> It now seems likely that the hash_mem/hash_mem_multiplier proposal has
> the support it needs to get into Postgres 13. Assuming that the
> proposal doesn't lose momentum, then it's about time to return to the
> original question you posed at the start of the thread:

> What should we do with the hashagg_avoid_disk_plan GUC (formerly known
> as the enable_hashagg_disk GUC), if anything?

> I myself think that there is a case to be made for removing it
> entirely.

+0.5 or so for removing it.  It seems too confusing and dubiously
useful.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (218+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pg@bowt.ie, pgsql@j-davis.com, sfrost@snowman.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
  In-Reply-To: <2164168.1594416641@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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