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.
regards, tom lane
