Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date
Msg-id 20180326220323.l2kelaomz3suf6a2@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-03-23 17:01:54 +0530, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> Attached patch which fixes that.

Thanks, will push. For the future, I'd be more likely to notice if you
CC me ;)


> However, I am not sure whether it is expected to have stable regression run
> with installcheck having local settings.
> For example, If I have enabale_hashagg = false locally; I will definitely
> see failures.
> 
> ISTM, that I am missing Andres point here.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule here. I personally often
during development disable parallelism because it makes some things
harder (you can't easily debug crashes with gdb, benchmarks show larger
variance, ...).  There doesn't seem to be an equivalent benefit to
support running e.g. with enabale_hashagg = false.

- Andres


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg