Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins

On 2019-Jul-11, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 04:51:02PM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:

> > I think implementing support for parallel hashjoin or explicitly
> > disabling it would be the bare minimum for this patch, which is why I
> > made 2 its own item. I've marked it as returned to author for this
> > reason.
> 
> OK. I'm a bit confused / unsure what exactly our solution to the various
> hashjoin issues is. I have not been paying attention to all the various
> threads, but I thought we kinda pivoted to the BNL approach, no? I'm not
> against pushing this patch (the slicing one) forward and then maybe add
> BNL on top.

So what's a good way forward for this patch?  Stalling forever like a
glacier is not an option; it'll probably end up melting.  There's a lot
of discussion on this thread which I haven't read, and it's not
immediately clear to me whether this patch should just be thrown away in
favor of something completely different, or it can be considered a first
step in a long road.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services