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

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date
Msg-id da260600-c214-8531-dd55-6f334726bdc5@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

Thanks!

Jonathan

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvpBQx4Shmisjp7oKr%3DECX18KYKPB%3DKpdWYxMKQNvisgvQ%40mail.gmail.com


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: output columns of \dAo and \dAp
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!?