> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> >> Basically, with the new optimizer, this may be a bug fix because of the
> >> more frequent hashjoins. That has always been my smokescreen to add the
> >> feature.
>
> > Tom...make you a deal. If you are confident enough with the code that
> > when v6.5 goes out in ~13days, it won't generate more bug reports then its
> > fixing...go for it. :)
>
> OK, you're on --- I feel pretty good about this code, although I'm never
> prepared to guarantee zero bugs ;-). If there are any, we can hope
> they'll show up before the end of beta.
>
> A note for anyone testing the new code: the hashtable size (which is now
> a target estimate, not a hard limit) is now driven by the postmaster's
> -S switch, not the -B switch. -S seems more reasonable since the table
> is private memory in a backend, not shared memory.
I see no documenation that -B was ever used for hash size. I see -B for
shared buffers for both postmaster and postgres manual pages.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
