Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove pgbench's restriction on placement of -M switch.

  1. Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-08-11T15:24:37Z

    I have some patches sitting around in my workspace that I think are
non-controversial, and so I was considering just pushing them once
the tree opens for v11 development.  If anyone thinks they need
further review, I'll put them into the September commitfest, but
otherwise we might as well skip the overhead.  These are:

1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13698.1487283211@sss.pgh.pa.us

That discussion sort of trailed off, but there wasn't really anyone
saying not to commit it, and no new ideas have surfaced.

2. simplify-simple-expresssion-checking.patch from
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2257.1498412915@sss.pgh.pa.us

This is the patch to get rid of plpgsql's exec_simple_check_node()
as Robert suggested.  It's never been anything but a maintenance
nuisance.

3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20559.1501703105@sss.pgh.pa.us

That one was already informally reviewed by two people, so I don't
think it needs another look.

			regards, tom lane

  2. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2017-08-11T15:42:13Z

    On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20559.1501703105@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> That one was already informally reviewed by two people, so I don't
> think it needs another look.

I'd vote for putting this fix into v10, but maybe that's just me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  3. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-08-11T15:45:31Z

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 3. remove-pgbench-option-ordering-constraint.patch from
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20559.1501703105@sss.pgh.pa.us
>> 
>> That one was already informally reviewed by two people, so I don't
>> think it needs another look.

> I'd vote for putting this fix into v10, but maybe that's just me.

... OK by me, any objections?

			regards, tom lane

  4. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> — 2017-08-13T04:19:54Z

    On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I have some patches sitting around in my workspace that I think are
> non-controversial, and so I was considering just pushing them once
> the tree opens for v11 development.  If anyone thinks they need
> further review, I'll put them into the September commitfest, but
> otherwise we might as well skip the overhead.  These are:
>
> 1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13698.1487283211@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> That discussion sort of trailed off, but there wasn't really anyone
> saying not to commit it, and no new ideas have surfaced.

+1

I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
case when we can see it coming.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

  5. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Gavin Flower <gavinflower@archidevsys.co.nz> — 2017-08-13T09:02:40Z

    On 13/08/17 16:19, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
[...]
>
> I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> case when we can see it coming.
>
But explosions are fun!
< ducks, and runs away VERY rapidly>

More seriously:
Up to now I'd been avoiding hash indexes, so great news!


Cheers,
Gavin

  6. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-08-13T21:24:59Z

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 1. check-hash-bucket-size-against-work_mem-2.patch from
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13698.1487283211@sss.pgh.pa.us

> +1

> I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> case when we can see it coming.

Anybody else want to vote that way?  For myself it's getting a bit late
in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
that.

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2017-08-13T21:43:10Z

    On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
>> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
>> case when we can see it coming.
>
> Anybody else want to vote that way?  For myself it's getting a bit late
> in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> that.

I'd vote for waiting until v11.  I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  8. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2017-08-13T22:18:18Z

    On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
> >> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> >> case when we can see it coming.
> >
> > Anybody else want to vote that way?  For myself it's getting a bit late
> > in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> > to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> > that.
> 
> I'd vote for waiting until v11.  I think it's too late to be doing
> things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
> that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
> than I'd like.

Similar here, there doesn't seem to be that much urgency.

- Andres

  9. Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

    Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2017-08-14T08:44:07Z

    On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'd vote for including this in v10.  There doesn't seem to be any
> >> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> >> case when we can see it coming.
> >
> > Anybody else want to vote that way?  For myself it's getting a bit late
> > in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> > to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> > that.
>
> I'd vote for waiting until v11.  I think it's too late to be doing
> things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
> that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
> than I'd like.
>

+1 for waiting until v11 with it.

We have plenty enough other things that could end up needing a quick
post-release-release, and those are things that have received at least
somem testing...

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>