Batch splitting shouldn't be followed by a hash function change?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 05:09 Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 11:40:22AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:36:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Jeff Janes writes:
> >> > The growEnabled stuff onl
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:07:52AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Batch splitting shouldn't be followed by a hash function change?
What would be the value? That can help with hash collisions, but that's
not the issue with the data sets discussed in this thread. The issue
reported originally i
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Gunther writes:
> > and checked my log file and there was nothing before the call
> > MemoryContextStats(TopPortalContext) so I don't understand where this
> > printf stuff is ending up.
>
> It's going to stdout, which is likely block-buffered wh
Jeff Janes writes:
> Is there a reason to not just elog the HJDEBUG stuff?
Yes --- it'd be expensive (a "no op" elog is far from free) and
useless to ~ 99.999% of users.
Almost all the conditionally-compiled debug support in the PG executor
is legacy leftovers from Berkeley days. If it were use
