Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:27:14 -0700
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Message-ID: <20170728002712.GA301@marmot>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABOikdOm_R1NzYUqQQ85p04VxDJpvdp_V3feaKBY8ATMWTE+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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