On 2019-Jul-11, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 04:51:02PM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I think implementing support for parallel hashjoin or explicitly > > disabling it would be the bare minimum for this patch, which is why I > > made 2 its own item. I've marked it as returned to author for this > > reason. > > OK. I'm a bit confused / unsure what exactly our solution to the various > hashjoin issues is. I have not been paying attention to all the various > threads, but I thought we kinda pivoted to the BNL approach, no? I'm not > against pushing this patch (the slicing one) forward and then maybe add > BNL on top. So what's a good way forward for this patch? Stalling forever like a glacier is not an option; it'll probably end up melting. There's a lot of discussion on this thread which I haven't read, and it's not immediately clear to me whether this patch should just be thrown away in favor of something completely different, or it can be considered a first step in a long road. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
