Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-Wz=V-LvfBW50D5u3SROOnnpN45LXiaBqiTh5yDoV=GM=kQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:06 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote: > On 7/2/20 11:47 AM, James Coleman wrote: > > It seems like the consensus over at another discussion on this topic > > [1] is that we ought to go ahead and print the zeros [for machine > > readable output formats], even though that creates some interesting > > scenarios like the fact that disk sorts will print 0 for memory even > > though that's not true. > > > > The change has already been made and pushed for hash disk spilling, so > > I think we ought to use Justin's patch here. > > Do people agree with James analysis? From the RMT perspective, we would > like to get this open item wrapped up for the next beta, given[1] is now > resolved. Tomas, Justin: Ping? Can we get an update on this? Just for the record, David Rowley fixed the similar hashagg issue in commit 40efbf8706cdd96e06bc4d1754272e46d9857875. I don't see any reason for the delay here. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: