Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

On 3/2/18 05:01, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Antonin Houska  wrote:
>> David Steele  wrote:
>>> Does this look right to you?
>>
>> Yes, this is what I meant. The patch applies cleanly and the code compiles
>> well.
>>
>>> If so, can you sign up as a reviewer and mark it Ready for Committer?
>>
>> Done.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> Actually I think it'd be nice if the "parallel_hash" argument was mentioned in
>> the header comment of initial_cost_hashjoin() function, but not sure this is
>> worth returning the patch to the author.
> 
> Done.

committed

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