On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
> >> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> >> case when we can see it coming.
> >
> > Anybody else want to vote that way? For myself it's getting a bit late
> > in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> > to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> > that.
>
> I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
> things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
> that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
> than I'd like.
Similar here, there doesn't seem to be that much urgency.
- Andres
