Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieMgN-00012H-BT for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:18:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieMgL-0000Kk-TJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:18:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieMgL-0000Kd-KB for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:18:49 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieMgI-00059Y-Cc for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:18:49 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ieMgG-0001dn-21; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:18:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:18:44 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Robert Haas Cc: Thomas Munro , Kyotaro Horiguchi , pgsql-hackers , Stephen Frost Subject: Re: Append with naive multiplexing of FDWs Message-ID: <20191209171844.GA5192@momjian.us> References: <20190927162002.GC31412@momjian.us> <20191130192611.GB4326@momjian.us> <20191205.122637.1855053671071685153.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <20191205181217.GA12895@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 03:19:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I agree with Stephen's request. We have been waiting for the executor > > rewrite for a while, so let's just do something simple and see how it > > performs. > > I'm sympathetic to the frustration here, and I think it would be great > if we could find a way forward that doesn't involve waiting for a full > rewrite of the executor. However, I seem to remember that when we > tested the various patches that various people had written for this > feature (I wrote one, too) they all had a noticeable performance > penalty in the case of a plain old Append that involved no FDWs and > nothing asynchronous. I don't think it's OK to have, say, a 2% > regression on every query that involves an Append, because especially > now that we have partitioning, that's a lot of queries. > > I don't know whether this patch has that kind of problem. If it > doesn't, I would consider that a promising sign. Certainly any overhead on normal queries would be unacceptable. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +