Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:11 AM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:33:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:47:51PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> My feeling is that we should get the BNLJ committed first, and then
> maybe
> >> use some of those additional strategies as fallbacks (depending on which
> >> issues are still unsolved by the BNLJ).
> >
> >The glacier is melting more.  Tomas, what's your status here?  The
> >patch has been waiting on author for two months now.  If you are not
> >planning to work more on this one, then it should be marked as
> >returned with feedback?
>
> I'm not planning to do any any immediate work on this, so I agree with
> marking it as RWF. I think Melanie is working on the BNL patch, which
> seems like the right solution.
>
>
Sorry for the delay. I have posted the parallel-aware version BNLJ
(adaptive HJ) of this in the thread which originally had all of the
patches for it [1]. It's not near committable, so I wasn't going to
register it for a commitfest yet, but I would love feedback on the
prototype.

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_YsWm7gc_b2nBGWFPE6wuhdOLfc1LBZ786DUzaCPUDXCA%40mail.gmail.com
-- 
Melanie Plageman