pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:27:14 -0700
Message-ID: <20170728002712.GA301@marmot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABOikdOm_R1NzYUqQQ85p04VxDJpvdp_V3feaKBY8ATMWTE+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoYfQeBXzXZ6wzJxLb8f01im4YAG216Doav+fAJ130rPwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOikdPg3QKXT52wKqCLmd=4EohBBOw_-u6Z6+NW4nxh3f7_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoaC7Dry=YpXNdhjU1ZUrxB=ifmdAscQL7MudSi+Nk05pQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOikdPBXwPt+oxWme9emYTkzSy8Vk=3NA0VWDJscQLy2Mqd0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYUfxy1LseDzsw8uuuLUJHH0r8NCD-Up-HZMC1fYDPH3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOikdOTstHK2y0rDk+Y3Wx9HRe+bZtj3zuYGU=VngneiHo5KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJGNTePTBOn-w4KjVC3K043AbvoavdPLFkCuc3yp9hTEcFY8mQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOikdNdvMYvwiXaZjy6RJzMA+ZZ-Yh+yLvbbKA-8WgoKUt=mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoawkB4NfW7j-hh_yW+57drZ+-LvVmvox8weJxE579JwQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABOikdOm_R1NzYUqQQ85p04VxDJpvdp_V3feaKBY8ATMWTE+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll be happy if someone wants to continue hacking the patch further and
> get it in a committable shape. I can stay actively involved. But TBH the
> amount of time I can invest is far as compared to what I could during the
> last cycle.

That's disappointing.

I personally find it very difficult to assess something like this. The
problem is that even if you can demonstrate that the patch is strictly
better than what we have today, the risk of reaching a local maxima
exists.  Do we really want to double-down on HOT?

If I'm not mistaken, the goal of WARM is, roughly speaking, to make
updates that would not be HOT-safe today do a "partial HOT update".  My
concern with that idea is that it doesn't do much for the worst case.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (260+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20170728002712.GA301@marmot>
Permalink:  ../20170728002712.GA301@marmot/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20170728002712.GA301@marmot

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: pg@bowt.ie, pavan.deolasee@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, kommi.haribabu@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
  In-Reply-To: <20170728002712.GA301@marmot>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox