Horton

Re: Teaching users how they can get the most out of HOT in Postgres 14

Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-20T16:22:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

> On Jun 14, 2021, at 7:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Of course I can easily add a
> GUC. But I won't do so in the absence of any real argument in favor of
> it.

I'd want to see some evidence that the GUC is necessary.  (For that matter, why is a per relation setting necessary?)  Is there a reproducible pathological case, perhaps with a pgbench script, to demonstrate the need?  I'm not asking whether there might be some regression, but rather whether somebody wants to construct a worst-case pathological case and publish quantitative results about how bad it is.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Support disabling index bypassing by VACUUM.

  2. Teach VACUUM to bypass unnecessary index vacuuming.