Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=V-LvfBW50D5u3SROOnnpN45LXiaBqiTh5yDoV=GM=kQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:06 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/20 11:47 AM, James Coleman wrote:
> > It seems like the consensus over at another discussion on this topic
> > [1] is that we ought to go ahead and print the zeros [for machine
> > readable output formats], even though that creates some interesting
> > scenarios like the fact that disk sorts will print 0 for memory even
> > though that's not true.
> >
> > The change has already been made and pushed for hash disk spilling, so
> > I think we ought to use Justin's patch here.
>
> Do people agree with James analysis? From the RMT perspective, we would
> like to get this open item wrapped up for the next beta, given[1] is now
> resolved.

Tomas, Justin: Ping? Can we get an update on this?

Just for the record, David Rowley fixed the similar hashagg issue in
commit 40efbf8706cdd96e06bc4d1754272e46d9857875. I don't see any
reason for the delay here.

Thanks
-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement For Copy From Binary Files
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."