Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> I don't see hash_mem as being any kind of proper fix- it's just punting
> to the user saying "we can't figure this out, how about you do it" and,
> worse, it's in conflict with how we already ask the user that question.
> Turning it into a multiplier doesn't change that either.
Have you got a better proposal that is reasonably implementable for v13?
(I do not accept the argument that "do nothing" is a better proposal.)
I agree that hash_mem is a stopgap, whether it's a multiplier or no,
but at this point it seems difficult to avoid inventing a stopgap.
Getting rid of the process-global work_mem setting is a research project,
and one I wouldn't even count on having results from for v14. In the
meantime, it seems dead certain that there are applications for which
the current behavior will be problematic. hash_mem seems like a cleaner
and more useful stopgap than the "escape hatch" approach, at least to me.
regards, tom lane
