Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6963442a2654bd56d386d5a253586815d0c3a17f.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 19:18 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > Maybe pretend that Jeff implemented something called CashAgg, which > does > everything HashAgg does but implemented from scratch. Users would be > able to > tune it or disable it, and we could talk about removing HashAgg for > the next 3 > years. That's kind of what we'd have if we had the two escape-hatch GUCs. Default gives new behavior, changing the GUCs would give the v12 behavior. In principle, Stephen is right: the v12 behavior is a bug, lots of people are unhappy about it, it causes real problems, and it would not be acceptable if proposed today. Otherwise I wouldn't have spent the time to fix it. Similarly, potential regressions are not the "fault" of my feature -- they are the fault of the limitations of work_mem, the limitations of the planner, the wrong expectations from customers, or just happenstance. But at a certain point, I have to weigh the potential anger of customers hitting regressions versus the potential anger of hackers seeing a couple extra GUCs. I have to say that I am more worried about the former. If there is some more serious consequence of adding a GUC that I missed in this thread, please let me know. Otherwise, I intend to commit a new GUC shortly that will enable users to bypass work_mem for HashAgg, just as in v12. Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: