On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 01:22:57PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > > think the names you suggested quite fit, but the idea to use a more > > interesting GUC value might help express the behavior. Perhaps making > > enable_hashagg a ternary "enable_hashagg=on|off|avoid_disk"? The word > > "reject" is too definite for the planner, which is working with > > imperfect information. > > I renamed enable_hashagg_disk to hashagg_avoid_disk_plan, which I think > satisfies the concerns raised here. Also in 92c58fd9.
I think this should be re-arranged to be in alphabetical order https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-query.html -- Justin
