| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Date: | 2020-04-09 19:26:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa74xaiZTdLeQ_aiPE7-eJb_Pdkc_K_hv95PdaDjZnxKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs Postg윈 토토SQL : |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:49 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> It it really any different from our enable_* GUCs? Even if you do e.g.
> enable_sort=off, we may still do a sort. Same for enable_groupagg etc.
I think it's actually pretty different. All of the other enable_* GUCs
disable an entire type of plan node, except for cases where that would
otherwise result in planning failure. This just disables a portion of
the planning logic for a certain kind of node, without actually
disabling the whole node type. I'm not sure that's a bad idea, but it
definitely seems to be inconsistent with what we've done in the past.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-04-09 20:02:07 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-04-09 18:25:56 | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-09 19:29:09 | Re: Parallel copy |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-04-09 19:13:20 | Re: cleaning perl code |