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

From Jeevan Chalke
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date
Msg-id CAM2+6=VLOkaMVYWDQq+tfzWXLHZDBpy+OA_0t0TCHZAW-9KwrA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
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 ;)

Sure. Thanks.
 


> 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, ...).

Yep.
 
  There doesn't seem to be an equivalent benefit to
support running e.g. with enabale_hashagg = false.

OK.
Noted.

Thanks for the explanation.
 

- Andres



--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrey Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains bothhost and hostaddr types