Re: bad estimation together with large work_mem generates terrible slow hash joins

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> With the exception of ExecChooseHashTableSize() and a lot of stylistic
> issues along the lines of what I've already complained about, this
> patch seems pretty good to me.  It does three things:
> ...
> (3) It allows the number of batches to increase on the fly while the
> hash join is in process.  This case arises when we initially estimate
> that we only need a small hash table, and then it turns out that there
> are more tuples than we expect.  Without this code, the hash table's
> load factor gets too high and things start to suck.

Pardon me for not having read the patch yet, but what part of (3)
wasn't there already?
        regards, tom lane